Moon Landing - 50 Year Anniversary - Images Of ...? - What Did Those Astronauts See...?

I can say the same for you.

Prove-It...!

You cant explain the radical change of the craters position in the back-ground.
?

The story behind the coin...

The astronauts were transiting from one "Designated Stop" to the next scheduled "Designated Stop".

One of the astronauts saw something glinting (unusual) in the sun, and they made an "unscheduled stop", they were already behind schedule, had limited oxygen, water, and other consumables.

Unscheduled stops were a bit unusual.

Astronaut gets out, takes two photographs, one Black & White, and One Color. The amount of time, oxygen, water, (other consumables) required to get the tools, and collection bag was deemed excessive for this unscheduled stop.

Mission Control ordered them back in the vehicle, and continue to the next scheduled stop.

[link to cdn3.imggmi.com (secure)]

The NASA HiRes Image is very large. The "Coin" is a very small fraction of the full image.

It is Zoomed in on the "Coin" and Rotated in the above image.

You really have no spatial reasoning skills, do you? When the astronaut taking the picture shifted to the left, his view shifted. You can see the rocks to the left of the big rock have also shifted. It really isn't hard to understand. Just look around a bit when you go outside and you'll see similar things. There really is no problem here except you seem to have trouble visualizing things in three dimensions.

It's not enough to hide the rock.

You can very easily draw a line between two corresponding points on each view to prove this.

It is more than enough. The only issue is with you.

While I disagree, I don't feel the need to cloud the discussion with pointless personal attacks.

Something a little more substantive than that would put the issue to rest, and not make one question motivations.



nome sane?

Stating the fact that a move to the side and slight rotation is more than enough to hide the rock is not a personal attack. the rocks on the left side moved to the side enough for the rock on the right to be hidden. the faint red line at the top was to the right of the rock in question before and now, though it points to the same crater in the distance, it is now right next to the large rock. You can also see that the large rock is slightly rotated. All of that together makes it a fact that it is more than enough for the rock in question to be hidden by the larger rock. It also appears to be a fact that YOU have trouble visualizing in three dimensions.

BTW, the personal attack is "The only issue is with you".

Pointless.

Actually what I had in mind was that you would post a graphic with perspective lines drawn in to prove your point.

I suspect you have already done this, and to your dismay realized the perspective does not change enough to hide the rock.

Have not done it because the already provided pics with the red lines shows enough. It is enough to hide the rock whether you believe it or not. Still not a problem. But since YOU think such a diagram would help why don't YOU do it.

Because it means more to you.

This is your obsession, I am merely making observations.

I have nothing to prove, I have never been to the moon, nor seen any objective real proof that we went. In fact, every single piece of circumstantial evidence suggests we did not, and the objective proofs offered all bear the telltale signs of fraud.

No recent up close hi-res pics of the landing sites? Now they are off limits? Can't get hi-res from the lunar orbiter?

Hell, I have pics from the 60's of the Copernicus crater that are 10 times the resolution of the LRO.

What a damn joke.

that is your opinion. I'm just sitting here humored at your inability to visualize in 3D.


My obsession yet you go off on a tangent rant. Sure.

thanks for the humor!

Replying=tangent rant?

Good job not addressing my points and trying to make it personal.

You fail

The topic being whether a rock should be visible and you go off on an unrelated tangent. Not my fail. Why should I address unrelated points to the subject at hand?

Thanks for the humor.