Letters to David Irving on this Website

---

Quick navigationMr Irving, take me to ...... Letters Index... today's "AR-online" again... your main alphabetical index... news on your legal battle... you and your family... your career so far... how to buy your books... how to help your fighting fund... your publishing Home Page

---

Don answers questions on the authenticity of the moon-landing photographs, Wednesday, December 25, 2002

Those NASA moon photographs

NASA, Holocaust Museum vexed by claims Moon Landing photos are fakes

Here is a good website I found on the subject:

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/

It clarifies your questions.

Regarding the camera's crosshairs:

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/photography.html

"The cross hairs on the photographs were produced by a glass plate within the camera, between the lens and film. They result in a black cross on the film because they block the light from reaching the film directly below them. If, however, you are taking a photograph of a really bright white object, the over-exposed part of the film 'bleeds' into other parts of the film. This is particularly the case if the adjacent part of the film is black. This is exactly what is happening where the cross hair meets a bright, reflective part of the photograph. It occurs in a number of the Apollo photographs, but you only see it where the cross hairs seem to disappear behind a bright white part. You never see it happening anywhere else."

The differently angled shadows are due to the fact that the surface is not smooth but three-dimensional:

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/shadows.html

Regarding the cameras being able to see in the shadows:

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/shadows.html

"This is a question posed about a lot of the photos taken on the moon. What needs to be realised is that the sun, while being the only source of direct light, was not the only light source. Light reflects off everything around the astronauts and because this is very bright light, the reflected light can be very significant."

Regarding radiation:

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/radiation.html

Regarding the same mountain in the background:

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/

"What can often be seen in the background of the Apollo lunar photographs are not hills, but mountains. Very big mountains. The thing about the lunar surface is, because there's no atmosphere and it's pretty featureless, distances are very hard to judge. Things that are very far away can appear to be quite close, there's nothing to soften it over the distance and there's very few features on the surface in between.

So these 'hills' are actually mountains, and they're far away. So the astronauts would have to travel a long distance before they'd ever stop being in the background.

What the photos actually show is a slight variation in the angle you can see the mountains. Rather than proving they're a fake background, thay actually prove they are three dimensional objects."

 

IN any case I think the best proof NASA did go to the Moon are the Moon rocks that were returned and that the USSR didn't say a peep. The Moon rocks have a unique isotope that can't be faked. those who claim the Moon landings were a hoax never explain the Moon rocks. They also never explain why the USSR didn't say a peep. Certainly the USSR would have known if the landings had been faked and the USSR would have had every reason to let everyone know about it:

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/proof.html

I certainly wouldn't put it past our government to have faked to Moon landings. But after studying the subject I've concluded NASA did go to the Moon on technology stolen from the Germans (V2s, von Braun, etc.). I guess the media wants the masses to waste their time thinking the Moon landings were faked when the real hoax, the Nazi gas chambers, go unnoticed.

Don [name withheld]