Was the picture of neil armstrong on moon faked just visit the link below...?

Question

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f21/macpro75/Historic%20Photos/Apollo11-Aldrin-moon.jpg just watch that the shadow of flag is left side and the shadow of arm strong is right side and the flag is flying also

Answer 1

Dark colour  on the left is not the shadow of flag.it is due to  a long pit on the surface.The appolo landing takes place when the sun is at very low on horizon.So shadows are very long.

The flag is kept horizondal by a wire frame as there is no air or atmosphere. The shadow of flag is far right  not inside frame.

Answer 2

NASA left retroreflectors on the Moon during three different missions.

If they have the right laser and telescope equipment, any amateur astronomer can find these reflectors and watch their beam come back.  It's basically incontrovertible proof that the Moon landings weren't faked.

Answer 3

1: That is a picture of Aldrin, not Armstrong.

2: The flag sgadow is NOT on the left side. The shadow on the left is the solar wind experiment, which is a foil panel off the left side of the image (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo...

3: The flag is NOT flying. It is held out by a rod sewn into the top edge precisely because it won't fly in a vacuum. It is rippled because it has been scrunched up in a confined space for several days before being put up, so it got creased just like your shirts do if you leave them bundled in a suitcase for too long. If you watch the TV footage from any mission you can clearly see the rod supporting the top of the flag and you can clearly see that the flag remains utterly static unless touched.

4: Why would NASA be so stupid as to have enough wind to blow a flag out blowing across the set where they are suposedly trying to fake an environment with no air?

Answer 4

You can see from this picture that something else is casting the shadow and that because of the low angle of the sun the shadow of the flag is way out of shot in your photo.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo...

Here's a view from the reverse

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo...

These two are separate images but show the flag exactly the same so it is not moving.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo...

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo...

I can even remember at the time someone saying on the TV that the flag was designed to look as though it was waving in the wind because, of course, there is no air on the moon.

Answer 5

I think this looks real. Check out the shadow of the rock and the shadow of the space craft. I think what you're seeing and calling the flag's shadow is actually the shadow of some raised sand I don't think you can actually see the flag's shadow. The flag isn't flying it's held up by an attachment to the pole that holds the fabric up.

Answer 6

First. That is not a shadow of the flag to the left of the flag. It is just shadows from the mounds of dirt. You cannot see the shadow of the flag in the picture because the sun is low. This is the same reason you cannot see the top of the astronaut's shadow in the picture.

Second. The flag material is crumpled. It is not waving. If you crumpled up a piece of tissue paper and stretched it out again it would look just like that. If you look at the videos of the flag, you can see that it remains crumpled and does not move. Also, if this was done in a studio, where did the wind come from?

Answer 7

This is a common conspiracy theory having to do with the moon landing, however like all the other moon landing conspiracy theories, it does not prove a thing. The moon landing was real, and this picture can be explained.

It was not faked. So one would say off the top of their heads that because shadows are in multiple directions that there were multiple light sources, when in fact there is only one on the moon, and that is the sun. Well, this is partially correct. The sun is the only main light source, but that light is reflected off of many different objects on the moon. First off, the moon itself. The moon's surface is highly reflective, as well as the astronauts space suit, and the lunar module. Because of this, the light was being reflected in many different directions, giving off multiple shadows. So no, this wasn't faked. The shadows are easily explained.

EDIT: About the flag... another fine point, but again, it can be easily explained. NASA specially made that flag and put a horizontal spring bar in the upper horizontal side of the flag, so it would appear to be spread out. Its not a matter of gravity, because although the moon has little gravity, it would still have enough to pull the flag down. And the gravity wouldn't give it the ripple affect. But the springy bar would. They put it there so the flag would seem erect, and give more morral, which was important at the time. After all, what would give you more hope? A droopy flag, or one waving erect on the moon?

EDIT 2: There is no atmosphere on the moon, much less any air so it isn't wind that is causing the flag to do that because it is simply impossible. The springy bar will however give that affect.

EDIT 3: mncollog... I am glad you know that the moon landing was real, but the relflectors do prove it without a doubt. They couldn't be dropped in or rocket propelled because first of all, they were placed in precise positions and were installed on the moon in an exact location. And although we could probably do that now, the technology to do such exact things did not exist back then. It was actually a lot simple just to have men do it. Of course nowadays, we would jump on the oppurtunity to do such a thing, but back then probes and advanced rocket propelling techology didn't exist.

EDIT 4: Dr. Moonfaker what in the world are you talking about? Look, I'm just a high school student but I have studied astronomy and astrophysics intensely and I am here to tell you that it is not impossible. If you even glanced at the Apollo missions, and the building of the lunar module you would know that the Van Allen belts only temporarily cut off communication. Where in the world are you getting your information?

Answer 8

You're a muppet.

Only a lack of IQ could explain your interpretation. A conspiracy theory based on an allegation of "wind" blowing a flag. If you think wind is the only thing that can make a flag wave, I would suggest that you re-enroll at your local elementary school and have them bring your knowledge of physics up to scratch.

We went to the Moon NINE times, landing on six occasions. Can one of you conspiracy idiots explain to me how and why it was faked nine times?

Answer 9

No, it's not a fake, you just have to stop trying to interpret what you see based on your own inappropriate experiences & lack of understanding the behavior of materials in a vacuum / low gravity....

PS it's sad to see this sort of question (and other conspiracy theories) being put forward by the youth of the greatest nation on earth .. it shows how far the 'west' has sunk and how the next generation will be pushed aside by the Chinese and Indians who will, no doubt, look down on us as 'uneducated savages' ..

Answer 10

lol no its not fake. infact they saw a ufo while in space

Answer 11

of course its fake, 1969 on the bloody moon with quality that good. come on now.  

Nasa faked the moon landings simply because it was not possible for a mna to go and return from the moon safely, radiation is the major problem.

Answer 12

<yawn>  No, it wasn't faked.

Doug

Answer 13

Just because these 'reflectors' are there does not, in any way, mean that we walked and/or landed on the moon.  They could have been dropped in (wrong word, I know); they could have been rocket propelled into place...I'm not sure that we will ever know for sure.

One fact that we've got to keep in mind is that we were in a 'space race' with the USSR...and somehow, our Nation's superiority depended on landing and walking on the moon before the Russians.  Why wouldn't certain government agencies want to fake it in the name of US pride and triumph.  I wasn't around then, but I'm sure the morale boost would've translated to huge economic growth in a time of need.

Accepting well-known information ('facts'; the 'truth') just because it is popular and widely believed can be ignorant.