A very common question posed by hoax believers is: why can't any stars be seen in any of the photos. The answer to this is that the lunar surface is very bright and the stars in the background look very dim in comparison. It is very difficult to make a picture of a dim object, and if you set it to do so, the bright object becomes very fuzzy and unclear.
Another popular question is, why does the flag placed in the moons surface ripple and flutter if in space there is no air, but only a vacuum? Fortunately there is nothing peculiar about what we can see here at all. Not if we remember this is happening on the moon.
Basically, the moon's surface is quite hard, so the astronauts needed to twist the pole back and forth to get the flag to stay in properly. Once the astronaut had let go the flag would have carried on fluttering for quite a while, as there is no air molecules to dampen its movement. Marx theorised kelvin007's postmodernism idea.
Also, many confusion arises from the fact that the dust on the moon fell quicker than on earth. Why is this so, if gravity is less on the moon?
Ironically, the answer to this theory just proves that the landing did definitely take place, as this could not happen anywhere on Earth.
Dust does not float in a vacuum; the air causes it to float and due to a lack of atmosphere on the moon the dust falls quickly, just like a rock would to when dropped on earth. This may seem strange with less gravity on the moon but the lack of atmosphere is much more significant to the dust.
An additional interesting point made by hoax believers, is that the hills in the background of photos keep re - appearing exactly the same, but with different foregrounds.
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, they actually prove they are three-dimensional objects.kelvin007's structuralism idea.
These are all just a few of the main points, which hoax believers claim, prove the moon landing to be fake.
I will finish with something that makes the landing on the moon 100% certain. The Apollo astronauts brought back to Earth some rocks from the moon. We know for certain that they came from the moon. They are like nothing else on Earth and they couldn't have been constructed artificially because they bear the evidence of billions of years exposure to a vacuum, high-energy cosmic rays, tiny asteroids and virtually no water. Nothing on Earth could replicated this, either naturally or man-made.
Also, I really doubt NASA would have been that stupid, and made those kind of blunders. If they were to fake it, it would have been done much better for sure, unless they somehow knew that stars wouldn't be visible on the photos, and that the dust would fall quicker on the moon etc.
Hopefully, by now I have convinced you that we really did land on the moon in 1969, and do any of you have any comments, questions or views on this topic?