Any physicists here who can explain why does the flag look like it is flying on the pictures?

I haven't seen a plausible explanation to that - not that I think it proves the whole moon landing is a hoax.

according to the space.com website as well as everything I have heard, a wire was inserted into the flag to make it appear that way.

I read that too, but even without reading how it was done it seemed intuitive to me that they would "stiffen" the flag to make it present itself correctly. Also when they insert it into the ground the shaft is rotated back and forth to get through the soil giving it, when on video, a waving effect - as if in a wind.

From the link on the previous page:

"each Apollo site, where the engine blast of the two-person landing craft stirred up the landscape, could be worthwhile targets for SMART-1 imaging."

That's nice if they can get close ups of those, 'cos you can't see any stirred up landscape in any of the Moon photos. It's part of the original Moon landing conspiracy by Bob Keising (sp?) - lunar landing modiles didn't leave any marks of their landings.

I must admit that I've seen only photos on conspiracy theory websites.

Another quote:

"Anything left on the Moon cannot be resolved in any Hubble image," According to the Space Telescope Science Institute, which operates Hubble for NASA. "It would just appear as a dot."

Hmmm guess we have to discount all the moon rocks brought back, not to mention, flags planted, and also the left over pieces of the lunar module on the moon. However I guess that evidence sort too much for the fantasists or is it watching too much Capricorn 1 at the cinema????

hmmmmmmm ....... yes, I guess that too ! coz : WHere is all that was "brought back" ?

the whole point IS : aLL those rocks and videos of flag planted etc etc - 700 boxes of ALL original evidence are .... missing !

discount or not - I don't know. what I know is - Nasa spokseman said they've been looking for all that stuff for over a year and ... still looking

perhaps brit and Tippaporn - re-read the article

You have a moon rock yourself, Brit? Does it say "Made on the Moon" on it? Or maybe you can see flags planted on the Moon on a clear night?

No put high powered telescopes can, perhaps the hubble??

right ! somehow - why didn't they so far ? or why don't they ?

for all sincere believers here are good news though:

Astronaut lets slip new moonship name

.... the new vehicle's name is Orion.

The crew exploration vehicle will replace the space shuttle program after it ends in 2010. Earlier this summer, NASA announced the names of the rockets that will propel the crew exploration vehicle and a cargo vehicle, respectively Ares I and Ares V.

NASA Officially Announces Project Orion

Project Orion will land Americans back on the moon by 2020

cool - we have to wait just another .... 13 years !

IF TV and Bedlam still around - perhaps this topic would have its continuation !

BTW - in the abovementioned article's web page - read all those comments on the article! there are quite a few which make good points - such as :

The moon missions is just a way to get public opinion back in favor of nasa. Going to the moon does NOTHING but to say "i've been there again".

or :

COST! Between the global economy and conflicts, going into space isnt the best use of money....

or :

they spend more per week in iraq than the whole moonlanding combined ...

which makes quite some sense. I mean, somehow they still can't properly handle that post-Katerina mess :

Katrina housing money slowed

Katrina Lessons Part 4---One Year Later

Bush and The GOP Have More to Rebuild Than New Orleans and the Gulf

Pain, Fury Still Rage a Year After Katrina

Katrina recovery has "gross inequalities": Oxfam

yet somehow they are able to find money to finance new Moon Landing (never mind - within 13 years) ?

my bet is - by 2020 neither NO would be properly rebuild nor Orion land Americans back on Moon !

Well if you really want to see the moon landing....

http://www.firstscience.com/site/video/his...flight2kb56.wmv

Well if you really want to see the moon landing....

http://www.firstscience.com/site/video/his...flight2kb56.wmv

You think this footage couldn't have been made in a studio? Does anyone know the very reason the US wanted to go to the moon anyway? Anyone? Anyone? The US at that time was smack in the middle of a space-race competition with the Soviets. The Soviets were the first to launch a man into space and the US was seen as below them. The US needed something dramatic to top them. Now isnt it possible they would come up with this scheme to show they went to the moon to sway public opinion in their favor??? It makes perfect sense. Making this fake video would certainly cost a whole lot less than actually trying to do it.

Let me ask you this. If we went to the moon back then, why have we never gone back? It should be really simple for them to do it now with all the new technology.

All of you laugh off any opinions that differ from the mainstream crap they shovel at you. You have all been pre-conditioned to say it's a stupid consiracy-theory, it's a bunch of kooks. You have been brainwashed and you dont even know it.

I am going to really rock your mind here with what I am gonna tell you. Surely you're going to find it hard to accept but that comes from your programming. Ok you ready? Here it is:

Not everything that Governments tell you is true. They often lie to sway your opinion towards their goals.

Ouch! Hard to accept, I know.

There was no reason to go back. It was a race with the russians, what was the point after they were beat??? I do believe it is quite easy to go back, and they will be using the same lunar module/capsule as the original.

Let me give you a tad bit advice Trip - if its quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, looks like a duck then its most likely a duck. Not hard even for the most dense to figure out.

There was no reason to go back. It was a race with the russians, what was the point after they were beat??? I do believe it is quite easy to go back, and they will be using the same lunar module/capsule as the original.

Let me give you a tad bit advice Trip - if its quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, looks like a duck then its most likely a duck. Not hard even for the most dense to figure out.

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN WRITTEN TO PROVE, ONCE AND FOR ALL, THAT WE ARE NOT BEING TOLD THE TRUTH ABOUT THE NASA FILM FOOTAGE OF THE APOLLO MISSIONS. THIS WILL ASTOUND EVEN THE MOST HARDENED SCEPTIC AND CONVINCE MANY PEOPLE THAT THE WHOLE APOLLO MOON PROJECT OF THE LATE 1960's AND EARLY 70's WERE A COMPLETE HOAX. VIDEO LINKS ARE PROVIDED SO YOU CAN WATCH WITH YOUR OWN EYES THE 'OFFICIAL NASA FOOTAGE' THAT PROVES THAT WE REALLY HAVEN'T BEEN TOLD THE WHOLE TRUTH!!!

This article was Updated on 6th November, 2005, to offer new evidence concerning NASA's current views on lunar radiation.

Bill Kaysing was a librarian/writer of technical publications and advanced research at Rocketdyne Systems from 1956 to 1963. He states that it was estimated in 1959 that there was a .0014 chance of landing man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth. This took into account the effects of radiation, solar flares and micro meteorites. He could not believe in 1959 that man could go to the Moon.

However, only 2 years later, American President John F. Kennedy set a goal in May 1961, when he made the following famous speech. 'I believe that this nation should commit itself. To achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind or more important for the long range exploration of Space.' It was just eight years later in 1969, that man finally left Earth and set foot on the Moon... Or so we have been led to believe.

I would like to show you some astonishing evidence that shows glaring mistakes or anomalies on the 'official record' of NASA film footage and still photographs. I have included the actual official Apollo film footage on this page to illustrate and also possibly educate you, the reader, of the anomalies and to let you see with your own eyes what has become one of the biggest cover-ups in the history of Mankind. I will also explain why the US Government has tried to keep this a secret for over 30 years.

I would like to suggest that if Man did go to the Moon during the missions, the Apollo films that we were told were filmed on the Moon are bogus and not the real footage. Evidence suggests that Man could not travel to the Moon's surface, but instead they had to stay in near Earth orbit within the safety of the Earth's magnetic field that would have protected them from the radiation that is emitted by the Van Allen radiation belt!!! (readers may note that in the NASA section of this web site, we feature the alleged communications picked up by Ham Radio operators and also show pictures of UFOs allegedly taken during the Apollo Missions - Some readers have written saying that we are presenting two different arguments here because if Man never went to the Moon how did they capture UFOs around the Moon on film? Let me restate that I do not claim that they never went, I believe that the footage released by NASA that is in the public domain today is not the original films! If you look at the other Apollo page, the majority of the UFO pictures are also taken in orbit - Man didn't have to land to take these pictures!)

But why would NASA and the United States bother to fake such an event and to what cause I hear you ask? Please read on and I will explain. Was man too optimistic about what we could actually do in deep space, and was President Kennedy's speech in May 1961 pressure enough to keep the hoax going?

David Percy is an award winning television and film producer, a professional photographer and also a member of the Royal Photographic Society. He is co-author, along with Mary Bennett, of the fascinating book 'Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers' (ISBN 1-898541-10-8). The majority of the film footage on this page is taken from the film 'What Happened on the Moon?', a film that also features Percy and Bennett and one which I strongly recommend if you have an interest in the Apollo missions (details of how to purchase the video are at the bottom of this article). Percy firmly believes that the Apollo footage was either faked or not the original film that was shot on the Moon. He believes that many anomalous features that would alert the eagle eyed viewer, could have been placed in the films by whistle blowers who were deeply dissatisfied to be a part of the cover-up. He has studied the entire transfer of the original film on video tape, a feat that not many people have done. What many people did not realize at the time was that a lot of the footage was actually pre-recorded and not live at all.

The first anomalous piece of footage I would like to discuss is from the 1972 Apollo 16 Mission. There is a major discrepancy between the still photograph taken with a Hasselblad 500 EL/70 camera and the TV coverage film which was shot from a stationary movie camera placed behind the astronauts. The movie sequence (that is viewable by clicking the picture to the left) shows one of the astronauts making a jump salute whilst another astronaut takes a still photo with the Hasselblad camera. On the still photo (that is pictured left) we see a flap of triangular fabric that has come loose and flapped up behind the astronauts head. However the TV film which was shot from behind the astronaut doesn't show the flap? Why not?

But the biggest shock is yet to come! The camera pans left past Neil Armstrong towards the left hand side of the Apollo 11, and what do we see 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 of 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, we can say that in fact they were not in deep space at all, but still in low Earth orbit! look at the blue sky outside. That would also explain why they would be filming an exposure of the Earth that was far away, to give the impression that they were in deep space. The exposure would be clipped to the window and the Sun's luminance would light it up, a technique that was used to read star charts to help with navigation and star reference.

Hasselblad were the manufacturer of the camera that took all of the photos on the Apollo missions. Jan Lundberg was the Manager Of Space Projects at Hasselblad from 1966 to 1975 and responsible for the production and building of the Hasselblad 500 EL/70 cameras that were used on the Apollo Missions. He says 'Originally NASA made all the alterations themselves, then they presented what they had done to us and asked if we could do the same, to which we replied yes we can, and we can do it better. We proceeded to make the alterations that were accepted by NASA.' Protective plates were added to the case and film magazine.

An important factor to take into consideration is the great variations in temperature that the film would have had to endure whilst on the lunar surface. The temperature during the Apollo missions were recorded as being between -180F in the shade to an incredible +200F in full Sunshine. How could the film emulsion have withstood such temperature differences? The astronauts can be seen to move between the shadows of the rocks and then into full sunlight in some shots. Surely the film would have perished under such conditions? If the film used during the Apollo missions had such qualities as to withstand such differences in temperature, why are Kodak not publicly selling them in today's market?

On all Apollo footage there should be cross hairs or reticules present on the film. These crosshairs were,

according to NASA, 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. Incidentally, Jan Lundberg has stated that the only way that you could calculate the distance in the shot using the crosshairs would be if you had two cameras set up to take a stereo picture!

Take a look at the pictures 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 gone to the trouble of either airbrushing out certain objects in the film, or added them over the crosshairs!

Why does this rock 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 centre of the scene should be.

One sceptic on the Bad astronomy sceptics web group has even said it is a hair??? on both the rock and ground? Now who's trying to cover things up?

One of the biggest anomalies that appear 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? A classic example can be viewed by clicking the picture to the right. If the guy on the left was near a vertical rise of ground (as has been suggested) his shadow would show a definite 'crease' where the land begins to rise. It doesn't!

Question: How can an astronaut cast a shadow several feet taller than his colleague who is standing a few feet away from him?

Answer: He is standing farther away from the arc light that is illuminating them both. I truly believe that this footage is taken on a film set, you cannot reproduce this strange shadow phenomenon with natural light, and that includes taking into consideration two natural light sources (the Earth and Sun) as many sceptics would have you believe.

I am not gonna copy the entire page into here. If you want to see the website I got this from, go HERE

All the conspiracy theories are fascinating and, as they say, a rattling good read. However, I don't believe them for a number of reasons: strange things DO happen and are difficult to explain; the fact that all the material has gone missing isn't a great surprise when you consider big orgainisations and the passage of time (and I wouldn't be at all surpised if it has been nicked and is sitting in the basement of a collector); going back was pointless as the whole exercise was to underline US superiority over the (then) USSR, and most of all.........

I don't for an instant believe that if it had been set up, all those involved could have kept their mouths shut. Over the 37 years since then, somebody is bound to have got drunk/divorced/embittered or whatever and spoken up. The numbers involved would have to have been extraordinary - not only all those who made the fims, rock samples, documents etc but also those who purported to have been involved in the original. We are talking scientists, engineers, labourers, drivers, painters, decorators, politicians...... goodness only knows how many.

I wasn't born yesterday - governments can and do lie to us. But I don't think so in this case.

I consign this to the conspiracy theory files, together with JFK, the CIA 9/11 plot , the Illuminati (sorry, Trip), cars powered by water and so on.

I had a good 'ol browse through this topic last night, I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy/gal buuuuuuuut this is what I truely beleive happened-

We went to the moon but the the top bods knew that with the chest mounted cameras and tech of the time they wern't gonna get any decent footage/pics to show the public and flap under the noses of the Russians (While saying 'Nyaa nyaa nya nyaa nyaaaaaaa!') Sooooooooo they improvised, they built sets and made pics so that A) The public wouldn't be dissapointed and B)The Russians would sulk.

True

You think this footage couldn't have been made in a studio? Does anyone know the very reason the US wanted to go to the moon anyway? Anyone? Anyone? The US at that time was smack in the middle of a space-race competition with the Soviets. The Soviets were the first to launch a man into space and the US was seen as below them. The US needed something dramatic to top them. Now isnt it possible they would come up with this scheme to show they went to the moon to sway public opinion in their favor??? It makes perfect sense. Making this fake video would certainly cost a whole lot less than actually trying to do it.

And of course a lot of money went into the project, I expect a lot got siphoned off quite easily.

Let me give you a tad bit advice Trip - if its quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, looks like a duck then its most likely a duck. Not hard even for the most dense to figure out.

But who made you hear that it quacked like a duck? Who showed you it looked like a duck? The government, and governments are not always honest with their citizens Brit, I never understand why you put so much blind faith in them. Is it not our duty to question them? Watch the watchmen and all that.

Do you honestly believe that their is no chance that footage could have been made in a studio?

My ex-boss believed the entire universe is stuck right on the end of somebodys fingernail, and one of these days that somebody is going to slip with a hammer in his shed.

there is common trend nowdays: Chinese claim to put man on the Moon by 2016, US to "be back" by 2020 , Japan somehow more humbly by 2030 .....

seems like Moon racing got a new fresh turn ! why ?

You have a moon rock yourself, Brit? Does it say "Made on the Moon" on it? Or maybe you can see flags planted on the Moon on a clear night?

missed this one !

nope, Plus - Brit and Tip are of that category who doesn't require "touch it yourself" evidence - they SACREDLY (perhaps - blindly?) and unquestinably believe into everything they are fed by mass media !

odd - usually those very people who depend entierly on empirical knowledge (A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence that is observable by the senses) contradict themselves by completely relying on something which they haven't observed by / experienced with their own senses !

well, just need to wait a bit longer - till 2020 or perhaps 2030 - to witness another "huge leap for humanity" !

"If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck then it's a duck"?

Donald Duck believes that along with most everyone else 'cause that's what they've all been told over the years. Actually he's a drake. A duck is the female of a species of waterfowl.

I don't for an instant believe that if it had been set up, all those involved could have kept their mouths shut. Over the 37 years since then, somebody is bound to have got drunk/divorced/embittered or whatever and spoken up. The numbers involved would have to have been extraordinary - not only all those who made the fims, rock samples, documents etc but also those who purported to have been involved in the original. We are talking scientists, engineers, labourers, drivers, painters, decorators, politicians...... goodness only knows how many.

I consign this to the conspiracy theory files, together with JFK, the CIA 9/11 plot , the Illuminati (sorry, Trip), cars powered by water and so on.

Yes this is the fatal weakness in all grand conspiracy theories, that no one spilled the beans.

Debunking the Hoax Theory

The black sky should be full of stars, yet none are visible in any of the Apollo photographs.

This claim is one I hear frequently, and is one of the easiest to refute. The answer is very simple: they are too faint. The Apollo photos are of brightly lit objects on the surface of the Moon, for which fast exposure settings were required. The fast exposures simply did not allow enough starlight into the camera to record an image on the film. For the same reason, images of the Earth taken from orbit also lack stars. The stars are there; they just don't appear in the pictures. The hoax advocates often argue that stars should be visible, and some of their claims are valid, however they fail to recognize the difference between "seeing" stars and "photographing" stars. The astronauts could have recorded star images in their photos by increasing exposures, but they were not there to take star pictures. The purpose of the photos was to record the astronauts' activities on the surface of the Moon.

Bill Kaysing claims that NASA has perpetrated the lie that stars cannot be seen in space to validate the lack of stars in the Apollo photos. This assertion is utterly ridiculous; in fact, NASA has released many photos in which stars are visible. Common among these are long-exposure nighttime photographs of aurora taken by space shuttle astronauts. This example [see photo] is a four-second exposure taken from the flight deck of the shuttle Endeavour.

There are several photographs of objects that are in shadows, yet they appear lighted and with surprising detail. Objects located in shadows should appear totally black.

The problem with this statement is that it fails to consider reflected sunlight. Next to the Sun, the largest source of light on the Moon is the lunar surface itself, which reflects large amounts of sunlight. At the Earth-Sun distance, maximum solar illumination is about 10,000 lumens per square foot; however, if the Sun is not directly overhead its rays will strike the surface obliquely. This decreases the intensity of sunlight per unit area. A typical Sun elevation during the Apollo landings was about 20 degrees, thus the illumination per square foot was about 3,400 lumens. Since the Moon's surface reflects about 10% of the light it receives, each square foot of surface reflected about 340 lumens. This is equivalent to the luminosity of a 35-watt light bulb. This amount of light easily explains the illumination observed in the Apollo photographs.

Shadows cast on the lunar surface should be parallel. Some shadows in the Apollo photos are not parallel indicating more than one light source, thus the photos are fakes.

Again there is a sound explanation; it is a simple a matter of perspective. A photo is a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional world, hence parallel lines may not appear as such on film. We all know how lines on a highway appear to diverge as they approach the observer, yet we know they are parallel. Another important factor that comes into play here is the slope of the ground. Let's consider two shadows - one cast on an upward slope and the other on a downward slope. If viewed from the side, these shadows would appear to go off in different directions. However, if viewed from high above, they would be seen as parallel. In other words, looks can be deceiving. There is no evidence of NASA trickery here.

This photograph [see photo], taken on Earth, is an excellent example illustrating how perspective causes shadows to appear non-parallel when seen on film. In this example [see photo] the astronaut on the right is standing on a small rise. The sloping ground has caused his shadow to elongate and appear at a different angle than the shadow of the astronaut on the left. Also note, if two spotlights produced the shadows then each astronaut would have two shadows.

Apollo 11 footage shows the astronauts' shadows increasing and decreasing in length as they move about. This is because they are in close proximity to a large artificial light source that causes their shadows to change as they move toward or away from the light.

This claim comes from David Percy, who displays this image [see photo] on his Web site. A brief examination reveals that Percy's explanation cannot possibly account for the shadows. If the shadows were produced as described, then the closer an astronaut is to the light source, the shorter his shadow will be, which is just the opposite of what we see. Percy claims ground slope cannot explain the shadows because the terrain is essentially flat. On a large scale the Apollo 11 site was essentially flat, however there were local undulations in the ground surface. Since we are looking at a two-dimensional image we cannot see the slope of the ground, but we can infer it from the shadows. It appears the ground is sloping upward and away from left astronaut either to the top-left, the bottom-right, or a combination of both. Remember, shadows cast on a downward slope are lengthened, while those cast on an upward slope are shortened. It seems that a change in ground slope is the only feasible explanation for the shadows we see.

Only two men walked on the Moon during each Apollo mission, yet there are photos in which the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?

The Apollo astronauts carried cameras that were attached to the front of their spacesuits. In this Apollo 12 photograph of astronaut Alan Bean [see photo], taken by Pete Conrad, one can clearly see Bean's camera mounted to his chest. The astronauts aimed and operated the cameras while they remained in this mounting. If you look closely at Conrad's reflection in Bean's visor, you can see Conrad's camera, which he is operating with his right hand.

There is one photograph of an astronaut standing on the surface of the Moon in direct sunlight, yet he casts no shadow, which is impossible.

The photo to which the hoax advocates refer is one of astronaut John Young saluting the Stars and Stripes [see photo]. They often reference this photo as evidence of fraud, however they are very wrong. Young's shadow is clearly visible on the ground below him and to the right (his left). How can his shadow not be attached to his body? The answer is simple; Young was leaping off the ground and was elevated about two feet when the photo was taken. There is also some very good corroborating video of the event. This is one of the most famous of the Apollo photos and it is surprising that the hoax advocates would be unfamiliar with the story behind the photograph.

Other comments I've heard about this particular photo include (1) the flag appears to be fluttering and (2) the flag's camera facing side should be shaded from the sun. The fluttering issue I will deal with later. As for the lighting issue, it seems obvious to me that the flag is angled to the right and toward the camera. With the sun to the left, the flag's camera facing side would be sunlit at a shallow angle, which agrees with the shadows on the flag itself.

Two photographs show an identical mountain background, yet in one the Lunar Module is present while in the other the LM is absent. The mountain scene must be an artificial backdrop.

The above example, which was presented in the FOX TV program, is just one of many hoax claims about "identical backgrounds" and "artificial backdrops" [see photos]. If someone is going to claim the backgrounds are identical, they had better be IDENTICAL. In this case, as in all such claims, the backgrounds are clearly not identical. If you examine the photos with scrutiny, differences can be easily identified. For example, look closely at the hill on the right of each photo and you will notice that the angles of view are significantly different. It is obvious the photos were taken from different camera positions, thus we see different foreground terrain. In the right photo it appears the LM is off-camera to the left.

Another factor to consider is, due to the lack of an atmosphere, distant objects on the Moon appear clearer than they do on Earth, thus the background mountains may be more distant than they appear to be. As such, a change in camera position may, at first observation, have a nearly unperceivable affect on the appearance of the background. However, close examination will reveal otherwise.

Some of the Apollo video shows the American flag fluttering. How can the flag flutter when there is no wind on the airless Moon?

This I find to be one of the more ridiculous observations. It is readily apparent that all the video showing a fluttering flag is one in which an astronaut is grasping the flagpole. He is obviously twisting or jostling the pole, which is making the flag move. In fact, in some video the motion of the flag is unlike anything we would see on Earth. In an atmosphere the motion of the flag would quickly dampen out due to air resistance. In some of the Apollo video we see the twisting motion of the pole resulting in a violent flapping motion in the flag with little dampening effect.

I've heard many hoax advocates claim that some of the Apollo photos show a fluttering flag. (How one can see a flag flutter in a still photograph is a mystery to me!) I can only guess that ripples and wrinkles in the flags are being perceived as wave motion. The flags were attached vertically at the pole and horizontally from a rod across the top. On some flights the astronauts did not fully extend the horizontal rod, so the flags had ripples in them. There is much video footage in which these rippled flags can be seen and, in all cases, they are motionless.

and much more at

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

http://www.clavius.org/

All of the above summarised by Buzz Aldrin...

buzz_aldrin_punch_video.mpg

On topic: what was THE FIRST WORD spoken on the moon?

On topic: what was THE FIRST WORD spoken on the moon?

Move,

As in move that that camera further to the left Stephen ( Spielberg )