Moon landing conspiracy theorists - lend me your ears.

[XFJET]

here is a sequence of photos from NASA direct
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap.../?AS11-40-5897
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap.../?AS11-40-5898
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap.../?AS11-40-5899

See how it gets better and better? as he changes the settings obviously, this is a 3 sequence shot, artificial light is introduced as aperture is not changed and you'd need at least a second exposure to get that photo! go try and take a 1sec exposure and make it that sharp with no tripod.... fuck ... unless you're robocop or something it's impossible

also in the last photo on the left of the plaque an object (white) is removed completely....Just look, it's there in the first 2 photos and missing in the 3rd

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...11/40/5873.jpg
watch it zoomed and have a look at his visor now you can see Neil and Buzz and 2 other people ... wait what?

Here is Aldrin getting out of the capsule .....
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...11/40/5866.jpg

Now please keep in mind the colour of his boots they are blue and now look at the rest of the pictures with him
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...11/40/5947.jpg The are grey now ... just look at more pic's of his boots during the Appolo 11 mission and see them changing colours.

Of course all this is due to NASA photochopping the photos so they look better to us right? and obviously Aldrin changed his space suit .... look at his visor and zoom in or should i say look at the full jpg .... in some it don't make sense, in some he has his hand fully extended yet in the visor he has his arm bent.... on the Moon light bends differently thou so it's all good, a straight stick looks like triangular stick, it's all because on the Moon everything is different....right!


The more you look at Appolo 11 photos the more you realise just how bad they were at faking stuff in the 60's

[Rezz]

here is a sequence of photos from NASA direct
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap.../?AS11-40-5897
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap.../?AS11-40-5898
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap.../?AS11-40-5899

See how it gets better and better? as he changes the settings obviously, this is a 3 sequence shot, artificial light is introduced as aperture is not changed and you'd need at least a second exposure to get that photo! go try and take a 1sec exposure and make it that sharp with no tripod.... fuck ... unless you're robocop or something it's impossible

also in the last photo on the left of the plaque an object (white) is removed completely....Just look, it's there in the first 2 photos and missing in the 3rd

Honestly the 3rd one doesn't look much better (if at all) than the first two. It looks like the 3rd has had a whole heap of post processing.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...11/40/5873.jpg
watch it zoomed and have a look at his visor now you can see Neil and Buzz and 2 other people ... wait what?

The more you look at Appolo 11 photos the more you realise just how bad they were at faking stuff in the 60's

The two other shadows you see in his visor are the "wind sock" thing to his right and the moon lander thing, they're warped because of the curve of the visor to look thin... not two other people's shadows.

[jezza323]

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...11/40/5873.jpg
watch it zoomed and have a look at his visor now you can see Neil and Buzz and 2 other people ... wait what?

The more you look at Appolo 11 photos the more you realise just how bad they were at faking stuff in the 60's

i dont see 2 other ppl? I see the guy taking the photo, the arm of the guy wearing the visor as well as his own shadow (quite long due to the fisheye effect of the reflection), the shadow of the lander to the right of him (in the reflection) and the shadow of the flag next to him on the left (in the reflection)

also with regards to the f-stop stuff you are on about. you are making assumptions based on the brightness of sunlight on earth, after passing through quite a lot of atmosphere. i dont know exactly what the difference would be without atmosphere, and im sure you dont either, but im confident it would be somewhat different to what we experience here on earth

[bv]

seems legit... good luck with the ad hominems in here buco

[Chong]

stuff

Mate, again, where are you getting your exposure/F-Stop from? I cant see anything on the website.

As for the rest of what you spouted, basically all your 'smoking guns' are laughable and doesnt even deserve a proper response, so here is a half arsed one...

So, just to clarify what you are saying...NASA faked everything, deleted white stuff in backgrounds, changed Aldrins shoes then in an elaborate ploy to hide all the evidence, made slight altercations to a website stating how a grid was layed the lens?

:knock:

[OvlovMan]

Now please keep in mind the colour of his boots they are blue and now look at the rest of the pictures with him
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...11/40/5947.jpg The are grey now ... just look at more pic's of his boots during the Appolo 11 mission and see them changing colours.

Boots + moon dust = grey. That shit clung to everything and looking closely you can see it has started to work it's way up his leg past the ankle.

That plus the one getting out of the lander is shot in shadow and the other in direct sunlight. Colours on film do weird shit depending on how they are lit

[seedyrom]

I love skeptics.

Someone does something, and provides evidence of doing so.
Skeptic refutes claim, provides no tangible evidence, apart from doubt.
Skeptic argues "provide more evidence or it never existed", which starts the cycle again when evidence is provided.


How about you the skeptic provide evidence to your claim?

I've shot brilliant shots with a full manual SLR film camera. No looking, just have my focal length set, and be at the right distance.


Bill already said about the lunar rover being 'parked' a certain distance away to film the lift off.
You think they didn't say to the astronauts "stay about 10 meters away from the other guy when taking photos".

Fark, it's not rocket science

[vet 180]

I love skeptics.



I've shot brilliant shots with a full manual SLR film camera. No looking, just have my focal length set, and be at the right distance.


Bill already said about the lunar rover being 'parked' a certain distance away to film the lift off.
You think they didn't say to the astronauts "stay about 10 meters away from the other guy when taking photos".

Fark, it's not rocket science

of course not. With the billions spent, dedicated years to preparation, specially designed equipment, no one would have thought hey lets get some decent shots while we are up there. All this would have been completely overlooked. They wouldn't of had photography tudors and with the limited budget of the space mission there would be no specially designed camera's for the mission either. Old mate Army would have just taken the the family poloroid from the coffee table on the way to the shuttle and made sure he set it to f2.8


Also I think some mane changes are in order from this thread. Conspiracy fruit springs to mind

[vet 180]

The other thing these skeptics always say is it was the 1960's stuff like that wasn't available then. What they fail to compute is how much of the technology from these almost unlimited budget missions made its way into public decades later. With out these space missions I doubt we would have the level of computers camera's etc that we have today. Space missions are to technology what cigarettes are to motorsport

[mrniceguy]

Well said Vet 180.

And how the fuck do you fake a Saturn V rocket??

[AJC13B]

The other thing these skeptics always say is it was the 1960's stuff like that wasn't available then. What they fail to compute is how much of the technology from these almost unlimited budget missions made its way into public decades later. With out these space missions I doubt we would have the level of computers camera's etc that we have today. Space missions are to technology what cigarettes are to motorsport

Pfft! We got our computer technology from the UFO that crashed at Roswell in the 60s!

[Mr Parts]

i'll just wait to meet up with john titor in 2036 and then time travel with him back to the moon landing http://johntitor.com/

Timetravel_0 - worlds best internet troll of all time??

[Billzilla]

First of all have you ever used a manual camera? How about you go grab an SLR camera, set it to auto but flick the switch so the lens focus is manual, now tray and take pictures.

Yes, an Olympus OM-10 for years thanks for asking.
Sorry but you're grasping at straws with all that - Cherry-picking is not the way to analyse any of this.

[Jim]

Also the Brisbane floods were all photoshopped as it was a media conspiracy and a government ploy to tax us all! There is no evidence the floods actually occurred. Man I love bandwagons!

[MartyHusseinXF]

The real proof of the moon landing being real is they aren't anywhere near organised enough to fake it successfully.

That or the dozens of countries tracking it at the time, or the hundreds of photos taken by independent nations of the equipment they left, ON THE MOON.

Or the other million things - but come across a touched up or poorly understood photo OH NOEz. CPMS{IRACYu

Called it in another thread about networking: XFJET==full retard