Recall my post, and your reply?... .
"Because you can't see it, clearly, in close range photos, because it's not visible in that sort of photo"
1. to quote (a passage, book, author, etc.), especially as an authority
2. to mention in support, proof, or confirmation; refer to as an example..
So, I did cite MID's quote.
You seem to know it, because you've changed your request - first it was a quote, and now it's a post.
Clearly, you should try answering your own question....
Just ignore the "..not visible.." part! Pretend it's not really there. Let;s move along, folks!
It is there. You know it. So deal with it.
I've even made it easy for you - up above in various posts, I've told you the answers. So, LIST THEM OFF, and we'll start the debate. Are you afraid to do that? If you don't, I will go ahead without you - and you won't be living that down...
It's your own list, maybe you are afraid of showing your own work? Scary list, eek!
Only the images from orbit. Not any of the images (claimed) from the lunar surface, ie: close-range.
No. That term came from your pro-Apollo side.
Didn't come from me!
Of course, I also don't care about your issue here, but, there is no Apollo side to this argument of yours.
There's your side; the side sans subject mnatter knowledge; the side that doesn't know pitch from yaw from thrust, the side that thinks the LM should've been tested on Earth, nd the side that believes all sorts of gobbeldy-gook!
I am on another side: the side that did this thing, the side that can teach you about how we did it, and what we did...the side that has frequently made you run away into illusions and attempt to use them as facts here!
Just for your own clarity, as you seem to be losing some.
And there is STILL this issue about you proving your case...
is that something to look forward to, or have you awakened to the fact that you can't really try that course?
aND YOU CAN RELAX...I don't actually expect much of an answer!