The Man On The Moon

When I was a small boy, my father often said to me, "My boy, when you grow up, when you're my age, you'll be going for holidays on the moon."
The funny thing is, all the trips to the moon seemed to have happened before I was born, and there have been none since.

And no other country, not even the Russians, have attempted to put people on the moon.
Why do we have an international space station, which is like assembling a bicycle while floating underwater, when we could have built a base on the moon? The reason is quite simple, no one went to the moon.

There's plenty of evidence to support the fact that the lunar landing, documents, photos are all an elaborate hoax.

Here's a simple enough jumping off point. Look at the picture above. It's a flag on the moon. The area above the moon's surface ought to be filled with stars, because not only is the moon's 'sky' pollution free, it doesn't even have an atmosphere. So how come, in all the photos you see of the moon, not a single star, when really, the sky should be dripping with diamonds?

Many believe the movie, Capricorn 1, which shows how the lunar landings were filmed in a studio, possibly in a remote and arid area, like Area 51, is quite plausible.

If you look at all the photos of the lunar landings, there are some troubling inconsistencies. For example, the legs of the lunar lander, covered in a shiny gold foil, appear to be spotless. Why are they not caked in dust?
Crosshairs in the photographs were permanently etched into the lunar cameras, for reference purposes. Yet in some pictures, objects occur in front of the crosshairs. This should be impossible. (It's like having a digital camera with the time and date of the photo occurring behind a tree or person.) It just doesn't make sense unless the picture has been doctored.
There are also errors in the shadows, where the angles of shadows in the background are slightly different to those in the foreground, which indicate multiple light sources, certainly artificial light and not sunlight.

When the lunar lander descends, why is there no background roar (it should be very difficult to hear the astronaut's voices over the roar of the rocket), and when it flies up, why is there no ignition. In the actual footage it simply rises up, no flame, no bright burst of rocket, seemingly just rising quickly up as though hoisted by a cable.
Why does the flag appear flap in the vacuum of space?
Why are there hundreds of bootprints, even prints over prints, everywhere around the lunar lander only moments after a photo apparently showing astronauts who have just landed.

When the footage of the rover and astronaut's are played at double speed, it resembles people in suits running around on Earth, able to jump no higher than we are capable of.

There are plenty of other inconsistencies. At least 10 astronauts died in freak accidents between 1964-1967, during the Apollo missions, including one called Grissom who is said to have been a critic of NASA. Thomas Ronald Baron, a safety inspector who submitted a 500 page document concerning the safety and viability of the Apollo program. A week after testifying he died with his wife and stepdaughter when their car was struck by a train. The report disappeared.

Leading right up to the launch of Apollo 11 was a great number of failed launches. This included Armstrong, months before his own launch, having to eject out of an experimental prototype lander at Ellington Air Force Base. The lander, as is obvious on this NASA footage, is highly unstable even in a controlled environment. At 300 feet Armstrong struggles to maintain control and finally Armstrong ejects about a second before the lander ploughs into the ground producing giant plumes of flame. It doesn't look like NASA were on top of their mission.

Another issue is the cameras provided to the astronauts had no view finders. They were attached to the spacesuits, in the chest area, and astronauts had to point their torsos in the direction of the target. Yet every photo of the thousands taken have faultless composition, with no a single photo cutting off another astronaut's head, or only getting a portion of the Earth, or lander or other object in the frame. And many objects that ought to be silhouetted or backlit, or appear in shadows, are somehow illuminated. This would not be the case on a lunar environment.

If you're on the moon, objects in shade should freeze (to below 250 Fahrenheit) and in the sunlight, should roast. It's unlikely that the spacesuits of the day, which were liquid cooled, would have been able to handle these harsh conditions. Worse than this, the radiation levels far from Earth are so extreme, the hull of the spaceship would need to be reinforced many inches thick, yet the hull of the orbiter is obviously not thick enough, and the foil would provide nowhere near enough protection.
If your dentist stands behind thick lead to take an X-Ray, you can imagine the required thickness of a lunar spacecraft.

There is also no blast crater in any of the 6 lunar landings.
Documentary evidence NASA provides, also appears to demonstrate identical background land features, even when the footnotes indicate that new footage is several miles away and taken on the following day.
Naturally occurring craters in the Area 51 area have been compared to NASA footage and some of it appears to match.

There is a lot of cumulative evidence to suggest it was a hoax.
But it's very easy to prove it was not a hoax, if it wasn't. There should be equipment still on the moon right now. High definition photos should show the equipment, lying where it was left.

We should also see an American flag on the moon, flapping wildly at us to catch a wake up.