Did NASA Really Go To The Moon?

10 proposed evidence to suggest that the moon landings were hoaxes

The Waving Flag

1. The Waving Flag -The obvious problem here is that there’s no air in the moon’s atmosphere, and therefore no wind to cause the flag to blow.For this,NASA claimed that the flag was stored in a thin tube and the rippled effect was caused by it being unfurled before being planted. 

Lack of Impact Crater

2. If NASA really landed on the moon, there would be a blast crater underneath the lunar module to mark its landing. On any video footage or photograph of the landings, no crater is visible, almost as though the module was simply placed there. 
NASA maintains that the module required significantly less thrust in the low-gravity conditions than it would have done on Earth. The surface of the moon itself is solid rock, so a blast crater probably wouldn't be feasible anyway – in the same way that an aeroplane doesn't leave a crater when it touches down on a concrete airstrip.

Multiple Light Sources

3. Multiple Light Sources-On the moon there is only one strong light source: the Sun. So it’s fair to suggest that all shadows should run parallel to one another. But this was not the case during the moon landing: videos and photographs clearly show that shadows fall in different directions. Conspiracy theorists suggest that this must mean multiple light sources are present -suggesting that the landing photos were taken on a film set.
NASA has attempted to blame uneven landscape on the strange shadows, with subtle bumps and hills on the moon’s surface causing the discrepancies. This explanation has been tossed out the window by some theorists; how could hills cause such large angular differences? In the image above the lunar module’s shadow clearly contradicts that of the rocks in the foreground at almost a 45 degree angle.

The Van Allen Radiation Belt

4.In order to reach the moon, astronauts had to pass through what is known as the Van Allen radiation belt. Conspiracy theorists contend that the sheer levels of radiation would have cooked the astronauts en route to the moon, despite the layers of aluminium coating the interior and exterior of the spaceship.
NASA have Claimed that short amount of time was took by the astronauts to traverse the belt – meaning they received only very small doses of radiation.

The Unexplained Object

5. After photographs of the moon landings were released, theorists were quick to notice a mysterious object (shown above) in the reflection of an astronaut’s helmet from the Apollo 12 mission. The object appears to be hanging from a rope or wire and has no reason to be there at all, leading some to suggest it is an overhead spotlight typically found in film studios.

Slow-Motion Walking and Hidden Cables

6. conspiracy theorists said In some screenshots outlines of alleged hidden cables can be seen (the photograph above supposedly shows a wire, though it is extremely vague).

Lack of Stars

7.One compelling argument for the moon landing hoax is the total lack of stars in any of the photographic/video evidence. 

The C Rock

8.One of the most famous photos from the moon landings shows a rock in the foreground, with what appears to be the letter “C” engraved into it.
NASA has given conflicting excuses for the letter, on the one hand blaming a photographic developer for adding the letter as a practical joke, while on the other hand saying that it may simply have been a stray hair which got tangled up somewhere in the developing process.

The Layered Cross hairs

9.The cameras used by astronauts during the moon landings had a multitude of cross-hairs to aid with scaling and direction. 

 identical backdrops

10.The two photos from the Apollo 15 mission shown above clearly have identical backdrops, despite being officially listed by NASA as having been taken miles apart. 
NASA has suggested that since the moon is much smaller than Earth, horizons can appear significantly closer to the human eye. Despite this, to say that the two hills visible in the photographs are miles apart is incontrovertibly false.