In short there are many things that make us suspicious like:



(i have taken these from various blogs and websites)







1) Who was the 1st man on the moon if Neil Armstrong had to be filmed stepping onto the moon by somebody else unless there was a robot-type camera somewhere.

2) In the photos "United States" is brightly lit when there's shadows everywhere else?





3) how the flag could have been fluttering if there's no wind on the moon





Answer to 3rd point:



# I think its true what you say but there is something to add on. If you get a flag and make it stand still it looks all folded and down, but on the moon, the flag is straight up and thats how it should be. On the moon there is no gravity like on Earth, on Earth the flag would look like its down because of the gravity is pushing it down. On the moon the gravity lets it go up. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say, its hard to explain it whith actually showing you with the flag.    BY: ANONYMOUS





#well, the reason the flag was rippling was because the flag started moving obviously as it was being put in the ground, causing a ripple- and there's no atmosphere on the moon- so the flag carried on rippling. that conspiracy should be ruled out atleast!  BY: ANONYMOUS

What if the answer is ''No''??

Will you sue him?

See this one, one of my friend sent me this in an email.

1) Since the Moon has only one light source, the Sun, the shadows must be in line. But in this cases, it looks as if there are multiple light sources in moon, which is not possible.

2) The foreground of many images of the astronauts on the Moon are filled in with light, while the shadows remain absolutely black, again proving that there are multiple light sources.

 

3)The pictures show that flags are waving. And they never will. The flag was on the airless Moon, just as we all knew.

4) There are no stars in the background from pictures taken on the Moon.

5)The footprints left by the astronauts are proof that the Moon landings are fake.

This one is also essentially a two pronged argument. First, the Fox show charged that the LM engine was so powerful that the upper layer of dust should have been blown away around the LM, so there should not be any footprints. Others have charged that the footprints should not be there since in the absence of water as a bonding agent, they should not maintain coherent shapes and sharp outlines.

I hav many more pictures but could not attach more than these.

I shall not accept any argument about this.