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

morons, if they were studio lights do u really think they would let the pictures go public?

in this picture -

image - [link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

it seems the light source has been captured and it looks like studio lighting

like it ain't the sun in my opinion....

anyone care to comment??

source - [link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

"The fact of the matter is ... it's highly unlikely NASA would make such an obvious blunder if they had spent millions of dollars to fake the Apollo 11 moon landing, Plait said.

"Okay, let's take a step back. NASA's going to release a picture showing studio lights? Hello!" The odd lights in the picture are simply lens flares," he said. "There's a big fat pentagonal one right in the middle that is from the aperture of the camera itself."

...................

OP you will drive yourself insane with this nonsense and keep yourself enslaved for the whole of your life. Please do something more productive like researching the real deceit in the world. The deceit that is in plain view, where your government and presidents lie and are NEVER brought to account. Never brought to account because YOU are obsess

ed with utter sh*t. It is now expected that politicians will lie for your vote and then never deliver because YOU don't hold them to account, YOU don't demand prosecution for breach of contract. YOU have traded your democracy for a fantasy.

What are all the wires and cables in the bottom of the picture for?

The dust that got into everything, hung around longer than expected, but didn't get stirred up on landing?
Yeah, magic dust, I think you've been huffing it
[link to www.sciencedaily.com]

there is no disturbance, get me a rocket, and I will show you what it does to dust.... and yes those legs look rather clean for a descent onto the moon

a lens is curved and it's reflecting the studio lighting.... you can even see the glare (the misty large cloud on the pictures) that's a flare, the lights are reflecting the studio lights

too many shills on this board

I have seen better thunderbirds episode than the one they are claiming here in the 60's

What are all the wires and cables in the bottom of the picture for?

To add with that...

On our farm I can hit record on my phone & capture many stars...

Being, even w the stage light/"sunlight"/whatever, where the fuck are all the stars?? NOT ONE? BS!

it's funny how there is no pics of the sun through the whole collection...

You haven't really looked have you?

I love how for the whole collection, god knows how many hours, the sun and shadows stay on the same angle.... again Moon magic

Spoken like someone that doesn't understand the first thing about photography. To capture stars on film you must have a long exposure (about 30 seconds or more) and a tripod.

my iPhone takes pictures of stars

Rockets are still largely the same and still extremely expensive. It isn't that we can't go back, it is that noone wants to pay for it.

I don't care what any of you say..... I have looked through the whole collection and have been laughing my ass off... the sun and shadows don't move over time,

reflections of studio lighting in the lens,

the lack of stars in the night sky,

the dodgy paper and foil taping of the module,

then you have the absolutely clean spotless landing site....

too many shills here

with all the technology we have we could have been back to the moon, so really?

I don't care what any of you say..... I have looked through the whole collection and have been laughing my ass off... the sun and shadows don't move over time, reflections of studio lighting in the lens, the lack of stars in the night sky, the dodgy paper and foil taping of the module, then you have the absolutely clean spotless landing site....

too many shills here

with all the technology we have we could have been back to the moon, so really?

need I say more

the moon landings are BS.....

I don't care what any of you say..... I have looked through the whole collection and have been laughing my ass off... the sun and shadows don't move over time, reflections of studio lighting in the lens, the lack of stars in the night sky, the dodgy paper and foil taping of the module, then you have the absolutely clean spotless landing site....

too many shills here

with all the technology we have we could have been back to the moon, so really?

need I say more

the moon landings are BS.....

Wrong.


Show me the multiple shadows on each object. Can't have multiple lights without multiple shadows




Which any photographer agrees with as they are too dim to show up on a photograph exposed for daylight conditions.



Outer insulative covering similar to many satellites even today.


WHY should the legs have dust on them? Explain it. Why when the rocket was shut off a few feet before landing and there is no atmosphere for the dust to get suspended in and hang around should any of it stayed there to fall on the legs?



AKA people that don't agree with your BS conclusions


Computers are better, so what? That doesn't change the fact that rockets are largely the same and still extremely expensive.

Don't forget everything was experimental equipment never before tested in real life extreme environment.

Just getting past van allen belts could have led to dead astronauts on live TV.

prove it....