The second moon hoax refers to a group of people who believe that man never actually traveled to the moon, and that the photographs were actually faked. Please note that our group does not endorse any specific viewpoint on this. We are presenting the argument here for the sake of discussion only.

Did humans really set foot on the moon? Were the photographs that astounded an entire generation real? There are a growing number of people that are beginning to doubt what we once considered fact. Read on to learn about what some people think really happened and see some evidence that just might back up their theories.

Some people believe that it would have been impossible to go to the moon, because of radiation, solar flares and other conditions. Others believe that if Man did go to the Moon during the missions, the Apollo films that we were told were filmed on the Moon are fake and not the real footage.

But why would NASA and the United States bother to fake such an event? You must remember that the United States was in a race with the Soviet Union to claim a foothold in space. John F. Kennedy gave his famous moon speech setting the goal of reaching the moon by the end of the decade and the fuse was lit.

There seem to be some anomolies in the official NASA photographs, such as shadows stretching out in multiple directions or crosshairs on cameras appearing to be behind objects, as if the objects had been pasted into the pictures.

One example that appears to be faked is the footage of Earth taken from the Apollo 11 when it was 130,000 miles away. This is the very first view ever taken of Earth on the mission and it seems strange that Buzz Aldrin would film the Earth when he was standing far away from the window. Surely you would want to get close to the window to get the best picture and also to eliminate light reflections.

But, we see the window frame come into view on the left of the shot. The camera isn't set to infinity either to get the closest shot. The window frame that comes into shot would have been out of focus if it was. Did the astronauts actually film a transparency of the Earth that was stuck to the window? You may think this odd, but a few minutes after filming the Earth, the cameraman adjusts his lens and focuses on Mike Collins inside the craft. What we see is what appears to be an exposure of the Earth taped to the window that is in the background to the right of him. That is the very same window that Aldrin was filming the Earth.

Then the camera pans left past Neil Armstrong towards the left hand side of the Apollo 11, and out of the left window, we see what appears to be another Earth. It must also be noted that the Apollo 11 at this point in the mission was supposedly half way to the Moon. The time elapsed was 34 hours and 16 minutes, but from the view of Earth in the right hand window it appears that they were not in deep space at all, but still in low Earth orbit!

On all Apollo footage there should be cross hairs present on the film. These crosshairs were placed on the film to help calculate distances on the Moon. The crosshairs were actually built into the camera and therefore should be visible on every single picture taken by the astronauts on the surface of the Moon.

Take a look at the picture presented here and you will see that parts of the crosshairs have disappeared from the film. This is impossible unless the film has been tampered with. The crosshairs should be completely visible in all shots and not hidden behind objects in the pictures. The only solution must be that NASA has added the objects over the crosshairs.

If you look closely at this picture, you will notice that the rock appears to have a letter 'C' on it. There is also a 'C' on the ground in front of the rock. The use of the letter C on film props is well known by the people in Hollywood and is used to show where the center of the scene should be.

One of the biggest anomalies that show on the Moon shots are the way in which shadows seem to be cast in totally different directions, even when the objects making the shadows are a mere few feet apart.

In other pictures, one astronaut's shadow appears to be taller than his companion's. This could be because he is standing closer to the artificial light that is illuminating them both.

NASA officials have said that no lighting was taken to the Moon, but this cannot be true when you view the evidence. The still pictures seem to show that Aldrin is being artificially lit as he descends the ladder. The reflectivity of the Lunar surface is so low, that light does not even reflect onto the rocks that are on the ground, yet the light in these pictures are so intense, even Aldrin's heel protector on his boot is lit up.

Some residents of Australia saw a different broadcast to the rest of the World. Just before Neil Armstrong steps onto the Moon's surface, the picture goes from a stark black to a brighter picture. As they watched Armstrong walking on the surface of the Moon they spotted a Coke bottle that was kicked in the right hand side of the picture. The next day, the footage had been edited and the offending Coke bottle had been cut out of the film. Several viewers had seen the bottle and several articles appeared in The West Australian newspaper. Western Australia received their coverage in a different way to the rest of the World. They were the only Country where there wasn't a delay to the 'live' transmission.

The exhaust jet coming out of the lunar module on takeoff or landing should have created an enormous cloud gas, instead we see the bursting apart of the covering as it leaves the Moons surface. The fuel used are exactly the same as used on the Shuttle today, and we can clearly see the exhaust smoke coming from them, so why not the module? Surely there should have been some type of crater under the Apollo landing modules, especially the Apollo 12, as it slowly moved across the moon's surface before landing. Why was there not any dust in the landing pads either? There is a lot of dust scattered when the module is leaving the Moon and if the engine simply blew all the dust away from around the lander as it landed, how did Armstrong manage to create that famous footprint?

If this footage wasn't taken on the Moon, how do you explain the astronauts being able to 'bounce' around on the surface, you couldn't do that here on Earth? How would you reproduce the effects of the lighter gravity of the Moon? The theorist suggest that if you double the speed of the film, you would see that the astronauts don't act any differently to how they would on Earth.

Radiation plays a big part in space travel. Solar flares could have affected the astronauts at any time. When doctors take X-rays they either leave the room or stand behind a sheet of thick lead to shelter them from the radiation. Why did Nasa only use a small sheet of aluminium to protect the astronauts when they knew that the radiation levels in Space and on the Moon's surface would be many hundreds of times more deadly?

One of the worst solar flares ever recorded happened in August 1972, which was between the Apollo 16 and 17 missions. This single flare would have delivered instant death to any astronaut who was up in Space, and yet all of the Apollo astronauts were carrying out their missions in what amounts to nothing more than a thick linen suit. These pressure suits may have helped protect the astronauts against heat but certainly would not have given any radiation protection.

The radiation would have greatly affected the film that was shot on the Moon. The only thing that would protect the film from this damage would be a thick layer of lead around the camera casing, which according to NASA was not used. Let's also remember that the films were changed whilst outside on the Moon's surface and not in any controlled environment.

Another of the main anomalies is the fact that the same mountains appear on different Apollo missions which are supposed to be several hundred miles apart.

Things to think about: Footprints are the result of weight displacing air or moisture from between particles of dirt, dust, or sand. The astronauts left distinct footprints all over the place.

How did the fibreglass whip antenna on the Gemini 6A capsule survive the tremendous heat of atmospheric re-entry?

Instead of being able to jump at least ten feet high in "one sixth" gravity, the highest jump was about nineteen inches.

The fabric space suits had a large zipper. There should have been fast leakage of air since even a pinhole deflates a tire in short order. The astronauts in these "pressurized" suits were easily able to bend their fingers, wrists, elbows, and knees at 5.2 p.s.i. and yet a boxer's 4 p.s.i. speed bag is virtually unbendable. The guys would have looked like balloon men if the suits had actually been pressurized. During the Apollo 14 flag setup ceremony, the flag would not stop fluttering even though there is no air on the moon.

How did a camera pan upward to track the departure of the Apollo 16 module if no one was there to operate it?

The Apollo 1 fire of January 27, 1967, killed what would have been the first crew to walk on the Moon just days after the commander, Gus Grissom, held an unapproved press conference complaining that they were at least ten years, not two, from reaching the Moon.

Thousands of people were employed to work on the Apollo mission, but very few people had access to the complete picture. By giving several people a small role in the missions meant that they would not see the whole project. If Man were so successful at landing on the Moon over thirty years ago, why haven't we been back? If NASA were fully funded in 1987, they estimated that they could land men on the Moon by 2010, that's twenty-three years. Since it only took eight years from President Kennedy's speech until the first mission, why would it take 23 years to send man back to the Moon for the seventh time?

Again, our team is not taking a position on this subject. We hope that this will inspire you to explore this subject further.