Due to the fact that Donald Rumsfeld (you know, the guy Rumsfeld's Disease was named after) stands to make million$ from the government's order of TamiFlu medicine, I suspect that the Bird Flu flap is one of them, as well.

The internet is raging with discussions about whether the Apollo moon landings were hoaxed. After all, why haven't we been back in over 35 years since the first landing? How did astronauts survive the radiation of the Van Allen belts? Why didn't the film fog up? Why were the apertures on the camera open to such wide settings (f/5.6 to f/11) in intense lunar illumination? How did everyone come back safely from such perilous missions, settling down a lander on the surface of the moon armed with no more computing power than is in a modern Timex watch? Why did the Apollo 11 command module, in orbit around the moon, take no photos of the back side of it? Why do the lunar landers appear to be made out of construction paper?

Jack White, the renowned photo analyst, has a very detailed website claiming that the moon landings were hoaxed. He shows this image that purports to prove that the lighting in two NASA photos of Apollo 11 were shot with lighting from a different direction (that is, that the shot was staged). "Ahah", I thought, "the jig is up!" Not so fast. NASA kindly posts scans of the original photos on its website, and I took a look. What I found out was that Mr. White literally is not presenting the whole picture.

He cropped out a feature, the shadow of which, falling right in the middle of the wrinkle of the panel at B, indicates that the light in both NASA photos was coming from the same angle, since it cast the same shadow. In the original picture 5947, if you look very closely, the shadow of the lunar lander STILL falls between the references 1 and 2 and the camera, so it is only the foreshortening of the extremely shallow angle with grade from which the photograph was taken that makes it look anything different from the angle in the foto 5931. In this case, it turned out I was hoaxbusting the hoaxbuster! In short, if the people who claim to be busting hoaxes are shown to be engaged in even one instance of hoaxing their own analysis, can you trust them with anything else? In other words, this whole site, with all its insights, is a dead end to anyone trying to discover the truth.

In short, I have found no 'smoking gun' yet that convinces me the Apollo moon landings were faked (nor that they really happened, either, for that matter). For further investigation: is there any basis to the claims that the lunar rover of later Apollo missions left no tracks? Why is the depth of field in the NASA photos so short if the lunar illumination is so much stronger than that on earth? How can a rocket motor not much bigger than a backpack lift off from the surface of the moon and put the transfer module into orbit where it joins with the command module?