/images/misc/forum-image-missing.gif
And here we see the effects of our two Suns directly from NASA archives..
why do these photos have cross hairs obscured by things in the photo, remember it's the camera w/ cross hairs NOT the moon???
Once a conspiracy theorist always a conspiracy theorist . Even the truth won't set them free. If you took their leader (Pete) and showed them the landing sites they would just say they've been faked . Flatlanders , always with us.
Watch the mythbusters episode with the camera experts and lots of mucking around with lighting and angles etc
They show ALL the faked photo arguments to be a load of crap. NONE of the shadow etc arguments stack up to prove it was fake / studio shots.
You can see where we have been on the moon.
There's a mirror on there FFS, that people use to measure the distance with a laser. Not just NASA, normal (smart / geek) folks do it often.
Its a bloody fact.
I guess one way to really prove whether the yanks went to the moon or not is to point some powerful telescopes where they say they landed and look for evidence of the landings like the equipment left behind.
Has anyone done this? My six year old super zoom camera takes pretty good close up pictures of the moon with a 35x optical zoom.
In all honesty I was trolling y'all a little (I was bored), I googled all the above in 10 mins.
I'm on the fence about the landing, totally believe they orbited the moon, it's just the quantum leap in 9 years they had to perform in order to:
1.- take off with all that weight.
2.- land on the moon.
3.- take off from the moon.
4.- and the BIG one; dock w/ the orbiter and leave orbit.
I'm open to either possibility, and I would appreciate if anyone can point me to a doco that explains things like:
the fuel and speed req. to leave lunar gravity and enter a synchronous lunar orbit w/ the orbiter.
the orbiter's speed.
the dock mechanisms... fyi en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo%E2%80%93Soyuz_Test_Project
the fuel and speed required to leave the orbit for earth.
the reason they scrapped the Saturn V's if they could lift such massive payloads.
Fly surfer is slowly but surely coming around.
Now if they faked the moon landing there's a pretty big chance the rest of their story is a croc too.
Most however like Bono see themselves above such deception. He thinks he understands science - which also includes non verifiable science like modern cosmology and their theory of evolution. If it's non verifiable it ain't science.
The lie of cosmology - starts at 44 minutes.
The second photo in the original post shows shadows from three directions - BUT, the photo is taken with a fish eye lens (very wide angle), which takes a flat subject and makes it somewhat round. If the horizon had been in the photo, it would have looked like a dome. Legit photo on the moon.
I propose a future iteration of the seabreeze platform that allows individual users options to drag & drop certain topics into heavy weather, a trash/recycle bin or similar?
The youtube vid of the guy debunking a fake purely from. The filmography point of view was very interesting. Someone posted it here ages ago.
How did they hide the double shadows that should be cast by everything, if there are two light sources? E.g. night footy match?
Damn those yanks are clever
The softer edge on the astronaut shadow, all the way down legs to the ground, compared to the rocks etc, is a little confusing. I'd have thought he'd need to be quite a bit closer to the light source or a long way from the ground for it to be that different.
If he's standing up on the edge of a bowl shaped crater, maybe that explains the difference, and the varying angles of shadows from left to right in the pic?
If you cast a shadow onto a sheet of paper, and flex the paper, you can bend the shadow to a degree