Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,163 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 2,759,337
Pageviews Today: 3,547,823Threads Today: 724Posts Today: 15,421
11:57 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

why can I see studio lights on the moon? [PHOTO]

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 14143765
United States
08/31/2012 09:47 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: why can I see studio lights on the moon? [PHOTO]
Hmmmmm guys.....

In the following picture, zoom in on the Astronauts Sun Visor.....

HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOO

You can see another Astronaut taking the picture but look at the shadows on the ground of the flag and Astronaut, they don't match the shadows when you zoom out.....

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22944086


Yes, they do. Convex visor distorts it some but they do match.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 14143765
United States
08/31/2012 09:48 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: why can I see studio lights on the moon? [PHOTO]
...


It DID get stirred up, it DID get on everything (electrostatic cling), but it DIDN'T hang.

The concept of "vacuum" is a hard one for you, isn't it?
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


From the link I posted you fucking retarded fuckity fuck,

"That dust, the Apollo crewmen found when they went out to play in it, did some strange things: it rose above the surface when disturbed and hung there far longer than could be explained by the moon's weak gravity"

Read more: [link to www.time.com]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22958904


static electricity on very, very small amounts of dust. The vast majority fell to the ground at the same rate as everything else exactly as would be expected in a vacuum.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 14143765


I see reading comprehension isn't your strong point
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22958904


Nowhere in your article did it say how much of the dust "rose above the surface when disturbed and hung there far longer than could be explained by the moon's weak gravity". Care to prove your contention that it was any more than a very small amount?
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
08/31/2012 09:50 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: why can I see studio lights on the moon? [PHOTO]
You do realise, one might hope, that the visor is a spherical mirror, not a flat one.

 Quoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD


Who knows. That's the frustrating thing about hoaxies.

They won't tell you what it is they think they see. If you press them, they'll go "No, you tell me."

If you guess, then (even if guessed exactly what they were thinking), they'll quickly re-group and shoot it back as an insult, "Of course it wasn't that! Nobody would be stupid enough to think that! Straw man! Straw man!!ONE-TY"
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
08/31/2012 09:51 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: why can I see studio lights on the moon? [PHOTO]
Nowhere in your article did it say how much of the dust "rose above the surface when disturbed and hung there far longer than could be explained by the moon's weak gravity". Care to prove your contention that it was any more than a very small amount?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 14143765


Or any more than a few cm, which is how I always read it when I first heard of the effect.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 22958904
Australia
08/31/2012 09:54 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: why can I see studio lights on the moon? [PHOTO]
...


From the link I posted you fucking retarded fuckity fuck,

"That dust, the Apollo crewmen found when they went out to play in it, did some strange things: it rose above the surface when disturbed and hung there far longer than could be explained by the moon's weak gravity"

Read more: [link to www.time.com]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22958904


static electricity on very, very small amounts of dust. The vast majority fell to the ground at the same rate as everything else exactly as would be expected in a vacuum.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 14143765


I see reading comprehension isn't your strong point
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22958904


Nowhere in your article did it say how much of the dust "rose above the surface when disturbed and hung there far longer than could be explained by the moon's weak gravity". Care to prove your contention that it was any more than a very small amount?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 14143765

I understand you have a short attention span but try to make it halfway through the second paragraph
[link to www.time.com]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 22133132
United States
08/31/2012 09:54 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: why can I see studio lights on the moon? [PHOTO]
they brought lights with them on the moon so they could see
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 14143765
United States
08/31/2012 10:00 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: why can I see studio lights on the moon? [PHOTO]
...


static electricity on very, very small amounts of dust. The vast majority fell to the ground at the same rate as everything else exactly as would be expected in a vacuum.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 14143765


I see reading comprehension isn't your strong point
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22958904


Nowhere in your article did it say how much of the dust "rose above the surface when disturbed and hung there far longer than could be explained by the moon's weak gravity". Care to prove your contention that it was any more than a very small amount?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 14143765

I understand you have a short attention span but try to make it halfway through the second paragraph
[link to www.time.com]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22958904


Still doesn't say it was any more than a small amount or more than a few centimeters.
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
08/31/2012 10:04 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: why can I see studio lights on the moon? [PHOTO]
I'm looking at more detailed articles on electrostatic levitation of lunar dust -- still general reader, but more detailed. There is apparently a fairly-well understood mechanism of a lunar dust fountain, driven by the Sun. But the course of the dust particles lifted by this fountain is strictly ballistic.

There is no mention in any source of dust hanging the way fine particles will on Earth, in atmosphere. There simply isn't any grossly similar mechanism.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 2679163
United States
08/31/2012 10:07 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: why can I see studio lights on the moon? [PHOTO]
One question: why didnt Russia call fake? Even Russia was in on it? They just decided to let America claim first? How come Russia didnt also fake a landing?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 21293662


They didnt have Hollywood on their side
7777StarBorn

User ID: 22963176
United States
08/31/2012 10:12 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: why can I see studio lights on the moon? [PHOTO]
ALL I CAN SAY IS THAT IS ONE BRIGHT LIGHT!
THEY ARE SUPPOSEDLY GOING TO MARS SO THAT AFTER THEY MESS UP THIS PLANET THEY GO LIVE THERE...THEY ALREADY HAVE ESTABLISHED BASES AND PLACES ON MARS...JUST HAVEN'T TOLD US!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 22962937
United Kingdom
08/31/2012 10:26 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: why can I see studio lights on the moon? [PHOTO]
I agree 100% that the whole program was faked; the first image in the OP shows internal reflections of a bright light source.
You know what? It AIN'T THE SUN! The intensity of sunlight on the surface of the Moon would be like noon at the equator, only about 10% brighter. What you see in the first image, even if the exposure was fast, is NOT the brightness & high contrast that would be expected. All light coloured objects would be dazzlingly bright & would probably fog a greater part of the image in a conventional film camera. To compensate this extreme brightness, the shutter speed & iris would have to be adjusted accordingly. In that case, any object not in direct sunlight would have failed to appear in the image at all.

Also, the composition & quality of the images is way beyond what would be expected under the supposed circumstances.
Two guys in bulky suits with immobile, pressurized gloves, in a hostile setting, (& running to a very tight life support schedule!), with cameras attached to their chests could never produce such high quality pictures. Producing photographs of the quality presented would have been a mission in itself.

And if that wasn't evidence enough, as you said... no jet blast marks under the LEM = busted 100%.
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
08/31/2012 11:00 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: why can I see studio lights on the moon? [PHOTO]
I agree 100% that the whole program was faked; the first image in the OP shows internal reflections of a bright light source.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22962937


Which is not what the OP thinks. He thinks those are visible light sources...NOT reflections from the out-of-frame Sun.

Isn't it interesting how hoaxies almost never correct each other?

You know what? It AIN'T THE SUN! The intensity of sunlight on the surface of the Moon would be like noon at the equator, only about 10% brighter. What you see in the first image, even if the exposure was fast, is NOT the brightness & high contrast that would be expected. All light coloured objects would be dazzlingly bright & would probably fog a greater part of the image in a conventional film camera.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22962937


Brightness is not contrast. But, yes; at the exposure settings of that photograph, you would expect to see objects in direct sunlight to be over-exposed.

Which they are. Those objects being, for instance, the visible edge of the pressure suit. Those are clearly over-exposed; you can even see the bleed.

The ground is being lit an an oblique angle, AND you are looking part-way into the shadow side. So it is darker.

So you get the numbers right, and the understanding right, but you don't look closely at the actual photograph to see if that matches up.


To compensate this extreme brightness, the shutter speed & iris would have to be adjusted accordingly. In that case, any object not in direct sunlight would have failed to appear in the image at all.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22962937


Same thing said in a different way. But what is the actual exposure ratio? I can easily capture the shaded side of an object from pure bounce light under several different conditions. I've even done it against a black-painted floor.

What are the visible objects in shade here? Well, really, there is only one; the pressure suit. Which is extremely white, something like 5x the reflectivity of the lunar surface.

(The surface of the LM is a different problem; it is not a lambert surface at all, but an irregular mirror; what you see is a distorted image of what it "sees.")



Also, the composition & quality of the images is way beyond what would be expected under the supposed circumstances.
Two guys in bulky suits with immobile, pressurized gloves, in a hostile setting, (& running to a very tight life support schedule!), with cameras attached to their chests could never produce such high quality pictures. Producing photographs of the quality presented would have been a mission in itself.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22962937


And then you roll out the usual regurgitated hoaxie talking points, almost as if none of the above was your actual experience and your actual thoughts either, but was just a retread of something you read or saw somewhere.

The gloves were far from immobile. The pressure gloves were nearly skin-tight neoprene with expansion joints, with removeable overgloves on top (which were not air tight). The Hassies were modified for use with those gloves and extensively trained on Earth in the same configuration. The camera was not "attached" to the chests but instead sat in a bracket which itself hung from straps, placing it just below chin level.

The composition is not particularly good, in my own creative opinion, with as a for-instance the signature Apollo 11 picture being tilted and the top of Buzz's pack cut off to boot. And if you examine the whole roll you will find plenty of poorly exposed shots, weirdly angled shots, and of course a few pictures of thumbs as well (actually, the more common was boots, as the camera was accidentally triggered while being moved).

And the "tight schedule" is a transparent reference to one of Jack White's signature stupidities. It pretty much ranks as, "How could they have possibly found time to film Ben Hur with all the work they were doing making a movie?"


And if that wasn't evidence enough, as you said... no jet blast marks under the LEM = busted 100%.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22962937


And yet you still don't seem sure you've added enough straw to your camel. At least one more, you think. I'm surprised you didn't trundle out the "ten feet of lead," or whatever that old tripe has morphed into by now.

An extra point for calling it the "LEM," tho!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1576354
Germany
08/31/2012 11:24 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: why can I see studio lights on the moon? [PHOTO]
I always find it funny that the same people who th aink landing on the moon is a technological impossibility are the same people who believe in eldritch sciences, like pinpoint steering of hurricanes and mind control.
Brubaker

User ID: 22901010
Colombia
08/31/2012 11:36 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: why can I see studio lights on the moon? [PHOTO]
Hmmmmm guys.....

In the following picture, zoom in on the Astronauts Sun Visor.....

HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOO

You can see another Astronaut taking the picture but look at the shadows on the ground of the flag and Astronaut, they don't match the shadows when you zoom out.....

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22944086


What do you mean? They are going the same direction and appear to be at about the right angle, too. You can see the photographer in the image, after all. Look at how the shadows are angling past him.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183



your problem is obvious....you can't see. the visor clearly shows the shadow is not the same way.

whenever the trusters run into a 'problem', they just lie about it.
Brubaker

User ID: 22901010
Colombia
08/31/2012 11:46 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: why can I see studio lights on the moon? [PHOTO]
wow, so yesterday, two rockets were launched to study the 'treacherous' van allen belts.

it appears that NASA by sending these probes is admitting that they don't know jack shit about the belts while the shills here have told us they know every square inch of the belts and how much radiation is contained within them at any point.


[link to www.vancouversun.com]

Last Edited by Brubaker on 08/31/2012 11:48 PM
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 22977421
India
09/01/2012 01:26 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: why can I see studio lights on the moon? [PHOTO]
wow, so yesterday, two rockets were launched to study the 'treacherous' van allen belts.

it appears that NASA by sending these probes is admitting that they don't know jack shit about the belts while the shills here have told us they know every square inch of the belts and how much radiation is contained within them at any point.


[link to www.vancouversun.com]
 Quoting: Brubaker


WHich means either Van Allen is a shill, or he was paid to make that comment about how ridiculous it was to assume that one couldn't cross the van allen belts.
Rudysarsof

User ID: 15394818
Australia
09/01/2012 01:30 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: why can I see studio lights on the moon? [PHOTO]
Why are the shadows in the picture at different angles to the mirror image in his visor????
It is a lot easier to lie when you are the only one who knows the truth than it is to find the truth when all you know is lies.

Remember people the revolution starts with you.
Sorry my mistake.
Revolution starts with R.
Change begins with.....nope that begins with C
Hold on I am sure I will get this.
Progress begin....damn.

Oh I got it
Youthfulness begins with you, so do your part and be childish
And remember you can not spell awesome without ME.
wakeupnow

User ID: 16300499
United States
09/01/2012 01:45 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: why can I see studio lights on the moon? [PHOTO]
 Quoting: troydungeon


a lens flare of the sun wouldn't look like that!!!!!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22811026


I think you are right....lens flare, LOL
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
09/01/2012 01:54 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: why can I see studio lights on the moon? [PHOTO]
your problem is obvious....you can't see. the visor clearly shows the shadow is not the same way.

whenever the trusters run into a 'problem', they just lie about it.
 Quoting: Brubaker


Could you PLEASE get off your horse long enough to define what you mean by "the same way."

My belief is that you aren't able to visualize in three dimensions; that you somehow think that reflections in a mirror should appear to be aligned with their originals.

You may mean something else. But I am not prepared to guess at what you may be thinking.
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
09/01/2012 01:58 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: why can I see studio lights on the moon? [PHOTO]
wow, so yesterday, two rockets were launched to study the 'treacherous' van allen belts.

it appears that NASA by sending these probes is admitting that they don't know jack shit about the belts while the shills here have told us they know every square inch of the belts and how much radiation is contained within them at any point.


[link to www.vancouversun.com]
 Quoting: Brubaker


WHich means either Van Allen is a shill, or he was paid to make that comment about how ridiculous it was to assume that one couldn't cross the van allen belts.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22977421


I've never visited New Dehli. So I guess I don't know if buildings there are only four feet tall but made of solid gold, the people sing from day till night and the national industry is the racing of tree frogs?

There's a HUGE difference between wanting to know more, and being completely ignorant. We know something about the belts, but we have been studying them CONSTANTLY since their discovery -- tens of dedicated missions from dozens of different nations, multiple models refined over time, etc.

What? Do you honestly think the space sciences learned everything there is to know at some moment in the late 60's? Be kind of pointless to still have national space agencies after that, wouldn't it? Or bother to send astronomers to school.

What DO they teach them in those schools these days!
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
09/01/2012 02:01 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: why can I see studio lights on the moon? [PHOTO]
Why are the shadows in the picture at different angles to the mirror image in his visor????
 Quoting: Rudysarsof


They aren't.

They may APPEAR to be at different angles to an unskilled observer, but you need to consider;

1) The nature of the reflector,

2) spherical perspective.


Or are you one of those people who think shadows must be parallel in the projection of a picture plane?
Halcyon Dayz, FCD
Contrarian's Contrarian

User ID: 19507663
Netherlands
09/01/2012 07:21 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: why can I see studio lights on the moon? [PHOTO]
wow, so yesterday, two rockets were launched to study the 'treacherous' van allen belts.
it appears that NASA by sending these probes is admitting that they don't know jack shit about the belts
 Quoting: Brubaker

Not knowing everything is not the same as knowing nothing.
We still build weather stations.

while the shills here have told us they know every square inch of the belts and how much radiation is contained within them at any point.
 Quoting: Brubaker

Don't lie.
The VARBs are a dynamic environment.
Its behaviour is influenced by solar weather, which is ever changing.

However, accurately predicting the life-expectancy of satellites that operate inside the belts very much depends on having good data on the radiation environment.
We're talking billions of dollars worth of hardware, much of it owned by private companies.
They'd be pissed if the data was so inaccurate that their assets burned out before they're expected to.
book

WHich means either Van Allen is a shill, or he was paid to make that comment about how ridiculous it was to assume that one couldn't cross the van allen belts.
 Quoting: Indian Coward 22977421

There you go again with the slander.
Among grown-ups we have this thing called providing evidence for one's claims.

Also, why would anyone assume that Van Allen was the world's only authority on this issue.
Simple fact is that NO domain expert in the world agrees with ANY hoaxie claims.
book
You might want to get a dictionary and actually look up the word 'shill', BTW.

inigo
Hatred is a cancer upon the world.
It rots the mind and blackens the heart.


Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 14143765
United States
09/01/2012 09:18 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: why can I see studio lights on the moon? [PHOTO]
wow, so yesterday, two rockets were launched to study the 'treacherous' van allen belts.

it appears that NASA by sending these probes is admitting that they don't know jack shit about the belts while the shills here have told us they know every square inch of the belts and how much radiation is contained within them at any point.


[link to www.vancouversun.com]
 Quoting: Brubaker


No, they want to know MORE about it as future missions may not have the luxury of a planned trajectory going around the majority of them like they did during Apollo. You can only use those trajectories at certain times. If you want to go back and forth more often you'll have to go through the thicker parts hence the wanting to know more about the belts as a whole.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1419828
United States
09/01/2012 09:50 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: why can I see studio lights on the moon? [PHOTO]
If you want to go back and forth more often you'll have to go through the thicker parts hence the wanting to know more about the belts as a whole.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 14143765


pilot
Being * gnieB

User ID: 14631884
United States
09/01/2012 11:49 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: why can I see studio lights on the moon? [PHOTO]
another one....

image - [link to www.hq.nasa.gov]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22811026


HHHMMMMspock
 Quoting: THE INQUISADOR


I love how the rocket thrusters on the lander havent disturbed the prisitine moon surface, and how there is no moon dust on the legs...

Apollo 11 is a hoax for sure...
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22811026


The LEM descent rocket was capable of generating 10,000 Lbs of THRUST!

Not so much as a drepression under the rocket nozzle in this photo!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 14143765
United States
09/01/2012 12:05 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: why can I see studio lights on the moon? [PHOTO]
another one....

image - [link to www.hq.nasa.gov]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22811026


HHHMMMMspock
 Quoting: THE INQUISADOR


I love how the rocket thrusters on the lander havent disturbed the prisitine moon surface, and how there is no moon dust on the legs...

Apollo 11 is a hoax for sure...
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22811026


The LEM descent rocket was capable of generating 10,000 Lbs of THRUST!

Not so much as a drepression under the rocket nozzle in this photo!
 Quoting: Being * gnieB


CAPABLE being the operative word. they wouldn't have been using full thrust when trying to land. They would have been throttled down. Then when you take that thrust and divide it by the area of the thrust nozzle you come up with about 1 pound per square inch. not really that much. Add that to the fact that they cut the thrust off a few feet above touch down.

But you're wrong about there not being a depression. There was a slight depression with some of the loose dust swept away
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 14143765
United States
09/01/2012 12:06 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: why can I see studio lights on the moon? [PHOTO]
...


HHHMMMMspock
 Quoting: THE INQUISADOR


I love how the rocket thrusters on the lander havent disturbed the prisitine moon surface, and how there is no moon dust on the legs...

Apollo 11 is a hoax for sure...
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22811026


The LEM descent rocket was capable of generating 10,000 Lbs of THRUST!

Not so much as a drepression under the rocket nozzle in this photo!
 Quoting: Being * gnieB


CAPABLE being the operative word. they wouldn't have been using full thrust when trying to land. They would have been throttled down. Then when you take that thrust and divide it by the area of the thrust nozzle you come up with about 1 pound per square inch. not really that much. Add that to the fact that they cut the thrust off a few feet above touch down.

But you're wrong about there not being a depression. There was a slight depression with some of the loose dust swept away
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 14143765


And it is the LM by the way. Why do the hoaxers insist on using the wrong name? Another symptom of their lack of research?
Bowyn Aerrow

User ID: 22229335
United States
09/01/2012 12:28 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: why can I see studio lights on the moon? [PHOTO]
I fail to see what you see. Obviously you have better vision than me.

With that said.

Either you are talking about the lens-flare, where different types of lenses can have different optical 'artifacts' depending on their size and how the light hits them.

Or you are talking about the uneven nature of the ground. The ground at this site was not level (it sloped), further the landing took place at lunar Dawn - meaning that for the moon the sun has 'just' risen a few days ago.

A lunar day is about 29 days.

Also understand the process used to take images. The camera(s) the astronauts used were slightly modified in order to be attached to the front of their space suits. In order to point the camera they had to position their whole body. Other modification were made to enable them to use their gloves in order to shoot the camera.

The static cameras, those set up on tripods were positioned early 'morning' the first day, by the next earth day the sun would move sufficiently to cause all manner of ghosting, lens-flare and other optical artifacts.

Your cellphone has a very tiny lens. The lens on the Cameras used back then were 'huge' in comparison. The larger the lens the more area that can take up light and the more lens-flare artifacts one can get.

In your images I see lensflare (the triangular patches of light upper left) I also see foreshortening and optical illusions of shadow and light on a ground surface that is uneven and rugged.

Assuming for a moment that the Moon Landing was Hoaxed.

Do you honestly think that back in the late 1960's and early 1970's that Film Producers didn't know how to compensate for things? Do you honestly thing if this was a real hoax that any evidence of that hoax would be found in the images released?
"My Dog, its full of fleas!"
-David Bowwow


“A paranoid is someone who knows a little of what's going on. A psychotic is a guy who's just found out what's going on.”
- William S. Burroughs
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 22985962
United Kingdom
09/01/2012 12:34 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: why can I see studio lights on the moon? [PHOTO]
I agree 100% that the whole program was faked; the first image in the OP shows internal reflections of a bright light source.
You know what? It AIN'T THE SUN! The intensity of sunlight on the surface of the Moon would be like noon at the equator, only about 10% brighter. What you see in the first image, even if the exposure was fast, is NOT the brightness & high contrast that would be expected. All light coloured objects would be dazzlingly bright & would probably fog a greater part of the image in a conventional film camera. To compensate this extreme brightness, the shutter speed & iris would have to be adjusted accordingly. In that case, any object not in direct sunlight would have failed to appear in the image at all.

Also, the composition & quality of the images is way beyond what would be expected under the supposed circumstances.
Two guys in bulky suits with immobile, pressurized gloves, in a hostile setting, (& running to a very tight life support schedule!), with cameras attached to their chests could never produce such high quality pictures. Producing photographs of the quality presented would have been a mission in itself.

And if that wasn't evidence enough, as you said... no jet blast marks under the LEM = busted 100%.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22962937


+1

Apollo was Hoax City, from the get-go.

drevil
Brubaker

User ID: 22995932
Colombia
09/01/2012 12:35 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: why can I see studio lights on the moon? [PHOTO]
wow, so yesterday, two rockets were launched to study the 'treacherous' van allen belts.

it appears that NASA by sending these probes is admitting that they don't know jack shit about the belts while the shills here have told us they know every square inch of the belts and how much radiation is contained within them at any point.


[link to www.vancouversun.com]
 Quoting: Brubaker


No, they want to know MORE about it as future missions may not have the luxury of a planned trajectory going around the majority of them like they did during Apollo. You can only use those trajectories at certain times. If you want to go back and forth more often you'll have to go through the thicker parts hence the wanting to know more about the belts as a whole.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 14143765



Yep, they sure do want to know more; they know nothing today, and knew even less in the mid-sixties.

The only ones that don't need to know more are the shills on this site as they knew everything about them 45 years ago.

Back then, the outer belts were not even known, but the astronots, with no radiation monitoring equipment whatsoever, knew exactly where to fly through and they didn't know the outer belts existed. No animal was sent to the moon first; but a tin can, with astronots in clown suits made multiple round trips.

News