Are there still people who say we didn't go to the moon because there are no stars in the Apollo pictures?

Photoshop

Space is a dark place only our atmosphere working as a telescope crystal allows us to see the stars. So I've heard then again I'm not astronomer.

bump

Wrong. You could see the light of the stars with or without the atmosphere. Getting them to show up on film though requires a long exposure and a tripod.

To answer the OP: yes, sadly there are some people out there that still think there should be stars in the pics.

No everything cool here. Heard of them though.

I believe we went to the Moon and landed.

BUT, I believe SOME photos have been faked.

For example, I'v seen a few so laughable that the " horizon " looks no more then 50 - 100 FEET away.

Even in the recent Mars photos, you can see that the horizon is WAY in the distance, MANY, MANY miles away.

Some of the "on-the-Moon" photos were probably taken on a Hollywood stage months before the astronauts even departed.

They flew past the hologram projection of the stars in our atmosphere. That's why you can't see any stars from the moon.

Stars are overrated.

The real issue is 40 + years and no repeat performance. That is not the way technology works.

Anyone 40 years and younger does not believe in your cold war fairy tales.

It is the way it works when nobody wants to pay for it.

Photos from the moon 40 years ago had a better camera than they have on Mars now .

"but its so far away!"

idiots.

Yes, too many Leftist Pigs who thinks the money should go to welfare recipients to bribe them to vote for Obama.

except for the private sector and public funding it receives. You guys need to figure some shit out.

People keep using that as an excuse. But the reality is that we have plenty of funds for it.

Take the Libya conflict just recently. We weren't even at war, and yet we still spent 2 Billion dollars per day!

[link to www.forbes.com]

All of Apollo 11 cost 1.75 Billion in today's money.

[link to wiki.answers.com]

You see the problem here. 40 years have gone by. One day in Libya was more than the entire first moon landing.

We are all SUCKERS!

at least somebody sees it. EVERYTHING THE GOVERNMENT TELLS YOU ABOUT MONEY IS A LIE....in fact you can take out "about" and "money" from that sentence.

But you STILL don't have anybody willing to put up the money.

People with cash are not stupid. They know a scam when they see one.

Yes, there are still such people.

Most of them have moved the goalposts, however; now they take statements made about different operations, at different parts of the mission, and attempt to contrast them in the format "So-and-so said he couldn't see stars, but whojum said he could. Therefor So-and-so is a liar; therefor the lunar missions were all faked."

Always amuses me how many of the Apollo Denier "gotcha's" require that NASA be telling the truth in the statement they wish to contrast.


Heck -- there's at least two posters here who still think a rocket can't operate in a vacuum! (To give one of them credit, though, he isn't of the "it wouldn't have anything to push against" school. His is a more complicated "The vacuum would suck out the exhaust gas before it was able to generate any thrust.")

Wrong.

Not to diss the Hassie -- the format of the film is roughly the same size as a frame of IMAX film -- but what Apollo had was BANDWIDTH.

Whereas Curiosity has to send every picture a hundred million miles or so on a few hundred watts of radio power (that's about equivalent to trying to open a garage door in Long Island with a key fob located in Hawaii), the Apollo Program had the advantage of being able to hand-carry the actual negatives home.

So you say. Except people fall for scams all the time so your statement has no actual meaning whatsoever. That and Apollo was not a scam. Scams don't have completely internally an externally consistent scientific evidence, thousands of people backing them up, and math that works.