Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 15
Waspie_Dwarf

[Merged] Did we land on the moon?

2,594 posts in this topic

what was the point of this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what was the point of this?

That... THERE IS NO MOON! What? Yes!

We couldn't land on it because... IT'S JUST NOT THERE! At least that's my theory. Anyone else support it?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

skyeagle409 - you mean the tracks, that are allegedly photographed by the very same NASA that claim it can got to the Moon back in 1969 and now it can't get Man even to LEO orbit of Earth? ROFL!

I mean - these tracks aren't here in the first place and are actually missing in many of the LRO photos (Photoshopping is hard work...), but this is nothing new :)

Rover ride on the Moon w/o leaving tracks - damn, it can fly! :D

trackless_rover_AS17_137_20979.jpg

( http://spaceflight1....7-137-20979.jpg )

apollo15_rover_nondestruc.jpg

( http://upload.wikime...5LunarRover.jpg )

( http://theflatearths...-88-11902HR.jpg )

AS17_143_21932_small.jpg

( http://www.hq.nasa.g...143-21932HR.jpg )

( http://apolloanomali...sing_tracks.htm )

( http://www.aulis.com...er_findings.htm )

( http://theflatearths...nbuggy_Problems )

:clap:

These tracks on the moon. Yes indeed, definitely look like the tracks of the lunar rover.

Apollo15_ascentphoto.jpg

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apollo "Sun":

as12_46_6765_small.jpg

( http://www.lpi.usra....S12/46/6765.jpg )

Apollo "Sun":

JSC2007e045377_small.jpg

( http://www.lpi.usra....2007e045377.jpg )

...and similar "Suns"... (for example http://www.lpi.usra....S12/46/6766.jpg )

Now what's there to be seen? A hell lot! First at all, Sun does NOT contain a - lightbulb!

(lightbulb is "žárovku" in Czech)

lightbulb_anim.gif

lightbulb_anim_2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apollo "Sun":

as12_46_6765_small.jpg

( http://www.lpi.usra....S12/46/6765.jpg )

Apollo "Sun":

JSC2007e045377_small.jpg

( http://www.lpi.usra....2007e045377.jpg )

...and similar "Suns"... (for example http://www.lpi.usra....S12/46/6766.jpg )

Now what's there to be seen? A hell lot! First at all, Sun does NOT contain a - lightbulb!

(lightbulb is "žárovku" in Czech)

lightbulb_anim.gif

lightbulb_anim_2.gif

What lightbulb? Do you really think that anyone would try to hoax such a thing using a real lightbulb??? :w00t::lol: :lol:

Edited by skyeagle409
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That... THERE IS NO MOON! What? Yes!

We couldn't land on it because... IT'S JUST NOT THERE! At least that's my theory. Anyone else support it?

Batman-Chin-Rub.gif

interesting indeed.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

skyeagle409 - LOL! Bad news for you. First - where you see the tracks on the hi-res quality photos?

Second - what blurry crap you posted? I did not see much from that lowres... I mean, come on! From LEO thru atmosphere (!) we can read what time is on man watches (in ideal conditions). From few miles LRO can't make a better picture? :)

Third - bad news again - according to astrophysics, disturbed Moon surface is lighter that the untouched one, because the untouched one was darkened by Sun for millions of years. So, these tracks should be lighter that the undisturbed surface. The very fact that they are darker means that they are Photoshopped ;)

Real Sun in space:

sun_in_space_small.jpg

( http://ww1.prweb.com/prfiles/2007/04/30/522958/Slide42.JPG )

Real Sun in space (STS mission):

sun_in_space_2_small.jpg

( http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/187921main_image_feature_900_ys_full.jpg )

Sun from Earth:

slunce_na_horach.jpg

Sun from Earth behind clouds:

slunce_za_mrakyl.jpg

(they are not on the Moon :P )

So, no image of Sun looks like the Apollo "Sun's." That itself is a red flag. How to see the lightbulb in the images? Open a 12MB jpeg from NASA: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollopanoramas/images/print/original/JSC2007e045377.jpg or this one: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS12/46/6765.jpg and in Photoshop use curves input 247 - 249, output 0. Now you can see, that there is hotspot in the middle of the NASA "Sun's" - on the first image you can even see the reflection near the left side of the reflector!

However what will real Sun look like in this settings?

slunce_na_horach_curves.png

slunce_za_mraky_curves.png

sun_in_space_curves.png

Quite different from NASA "Sun's" :) Busted again :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That... THERE IS NO MOON! What? Yes!

We couldn't land on it because... IT'S JUST NOT THERE! At least that's my theory. Anyone else support it?

You might be interested in this site.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That... THERE IS NO MOON! What? Yes!

We couldn't land on it because... IT'S JUST NOT THERE! At least that's my theory. Anyone else support it?

There are those who love to prove to readers how have been duped and not on the same page as reality. For an example, they have said that radiation of the Van Allen belts were too high for astronauts to safely transit the area, but it seems they were unaware the astronauts did not stick around long enough to absorb enough radiation to cause harm. Perhaps they should understand why they are not seriously harmed by X-rays duirng their exams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

skyeagle409 - LOL! Bad news for you. First - where you see the tracks on the hi-res quality photos?

Second - what blurry crap you posted? I did not see much from that lowres... I mean, come on! From LEO thru atmosphere (!) we can read what time is on man watches (in ideal conditions). From few miles LRO can't make a better picture? :)

Third - bad news again - according to astrophysics, disturbed Moon surface is lighter that the untouched one, because the untouched one was darkened by Sun for millions of years. So, these tracks should be lighter that the undisturbed surface. The very fact that they are darker means that they are Photoshopped ;)

Real Sun in space:

sun_in_space_small.jpg

( http://ww1.prweb.com...958/Slide42.JPG )

Real Sun in space (STS mission):

sun_in_space_2_small.jpg

( http://www.nasa.gov/...900_ys_full.jpg )

Sun from Earth:

slunce_na_horach.jpg

Sun from Earth behind clouds:

slunce_za_mrakyl.jpg

(they are not on the Moon :P )

So, no image of Sun looks like the Apollo "Sun's." That itself is a red flag. How to see the lightbulb in the images? Open a 12MB jpeg from NASA: http://www.lpi.usra....2007e045377.jpg or this one: http://www.lpi.usra....S12/46/6765.jpg and in Photoshop use curves input 247 - 249, output 0. Now you can see, that there is hotspot in the middle of the NASA "Sun's" - on the first image you can even see the reflection near the left side of the reflector!

However what will real Sun look like in this settings?

slunce_na_horach_curves.png

slunce_za_mraky_curves.png

sun_in_space_curves.png

Quite different from NASA "Sun's" :) Busted again :D

More nice lighbulb photos?! :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the image, that convinced me most, that this is a hoax? The famous Buzz Aldrin portrait:

astronaut_on_moon_shadows.jpg

Fake! In shadow side, the astroNOT could not be light up like a Xmass tree. Shadows from sun are never cast in different directions, as we see (Aldrin shadow vs. rock in back shadow). And also Moon should not end at about 10meters from the camera :)

More Photoshopping? NASA deliver! :D

GPN_2000_001104_small2.jpg

( http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/LARGE/GPN-2000-001104.jpg )

curves input 9, output 255 ;)

as17_134_20382_small2.jpg

( http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo17/hires/as17-134-20382.jpg )

curves input 24, output 255 ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the image, that convinced me most, that this is a hoax? The famous Buzz Aldrin portrait:

astronaut_on_moon_shadows.jpg

Fake! In shadow side, the astroNOT could not be light up like a Xmass tree. Shadows from sun are never cast in different directions, as we see (Aldrin shadow vs. rock in back shadow). And also Moon should not end at about 10meters from the camera :)

More Photoshopping? NASA deliver! :D

GPN_2000_001104_small2.jpg

( http://grin.hq.nasa....2000-001104.jpg )

curves input 9, output 255 ;)

as17_134_20382_small2.jpg

( http://spaceflight.n...7-134-20382.jpg )

curves input 24, output 255 ;)

Try this on for size.

Chang'e 2

China's second lunar probe, Chang'e 2, which was launched in 2010 is capable of capturing lunar surface images with a resolution of up to 1.3 metres (4.3 ft). It spotted traces of the Apollo landings.

600px-Apollo_12_LRO.jpg

300px-Surveyor3camera.jpg

Surveyor 3 camera brought back from the Moon by Apollo 12, on display at the National Air and Space Museum. Parts of Surveyor 3, which landed on the Moon in April 1967, were brought back to Earth by Apollo 12 in November 1969. These samples were shown to have been exposed to lunar conditions

"50th anniversary of first microbes in orbit". Astronomy 35 (11): 22

http://en.wikipedia....o_Moon_landings

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take a picture from Great Images in NASA page:

http://grin.hq.nasa....2000-001137.jpg

(backed up on not-NASA owned sources for example here: http://farm9.staticf...e64c3c4af_z.jpg )

...and apply a high contrast on it :D Too lazy? Okay, I done it for you already:

I like this photo of the Apollo 14 astronauts in the hangar of my flying buddy, Lt. Colonel James C. Warren. After all, he was on the Apollo 14 recovery crew from my base, and whom flew the astronauts back to Texas after their moon flight. In other words, the Apollo moon missions were not hoaxed.

post-32948-0-33182600-1356810256_thumb.j

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The ISS suit is just a few inches away from the surface - such close proximity allows it to reflect some light.

But you are claiming a spacesuit is reflecting light onto a subject 15+ feet away. And that is quite a different thing.

That's what you need to show. So how about it?....

You already accept that the heel can reflect light photons from that distance back to the camera. You accept that a spacesuit can reflect light sufficient to be re-reflected off another surface. Yet you seem to be saying that light reflected off a spacesuit can't be reflected back to the camera, but light from a source dim enough not to cast shadows can be reflect back?

You first need to prove a spacesuit reflection of 15-20 feet. If you can't prove it, then your case fails, the arm is moot.

The spacesuit reflects light. The heel reflects light. What's to prove?

But let's say it is indeed possible, for argument's sake.

His right arm could indeed extend 23.6 - 34.0 cm from the centre of his camera lens. And you know the arm must be such a distance at the time he took the photo - at least the 23.6 cm minimum, anyway.

The right arm would be at a right angle in such a position, so any reflections veer off to right. Away from the LM. You'll think up some untenable excuse for that problem, I'm sure.

If this is symptomatic of your understanding of simple optical properties, no wonder you think the photos are faked.

Here's a thought experiment for you. Imagine you're in the scene in question. Your eyeball is where Aldrin's boot is. You're looking directly toward Armstrong. When he bends his arm to take the photo, does it magically disappear from view? Of course not! Why? Because it is reflecting light form the sun into your eyeball (where Aldrin's heel is). This guff about reflections "veering off to the right" is nonsensical. Light is reflected in any direction you could see his arm from, since his suit is acting as a diffuse reflector. If he was wearing a highly polished suit or armour then you may have had a point: but he isn't, ergo you don't.

The light is not directly behind the photographer, it's to his right, as close to him as possible. The ideal position for it, as Groves noted.

So he says. Problem is, he never even examined the possibility that the light source could be Armstrong's suit. You seem to be dismissing this possibility simply because you want Groves to be right, as well as trying to reverse the burden of proof. After all, Grove's being wrong about extra lighting being used doesn't disprove a hoax. Does Groves analysis prove that Armstrong's suit cannot be the cause of the highlight in Aldrin's heel? If not, why are you dismissing it as a possibility?

Why is it ridiculous?

I addressed this in an earlier post. The obvious and sensible way to ensure complete congruity between the photos and the film/TV footage is take the photos at the same time as the scene is being filmed. In addition, you only want one light source to simulate the sun. If I can understand the stupidity of using extra lighting, then the people involved in the filming of the scene must also have known that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See ! You Guys ran Off one of the Greatest Members ever ! Our "MID" see what pushing all the wrong key strokes can do !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

skyeagle409 -

Van Allen belts.. they were unaware the astronauts did not stick around long enough to absorb enough radiation to cause harm. Perhaps they should understand why they are not seriously harmed by X-rays duirng their exams.

:rofl:

This is insane comparsion at best.

Radiation dose absorbed by exam using X-rays range from 0.01 mRems for Skull (0.000 01 rem) to 0.7 mRems for pelvis (0.000 7 rem).

http://hps.org/docum...diagimaging.pdf

Radiation dose delivered by Van Allen belts are at around 300 to 11 666 rems/h.

2dqvgug.jpg

http://photobucket.c...ums/ad75/ax2cz/

Now that is 1 166 600 000 higher dose!

Now according to NASA, they are "in the belts" for a hour to the voyage to the Moon and hour back. Given the fact, that even after absorbing 10 rem in two days you have only a even chance to survival, this alone bust Apollo definitively :)

And you won't have to trust me about it, from it's discovery it was known that the Van Allen belts and radiation in space in general are the showstopers for manned flights thru aby beyond them. Explorer 1 geigercounter was overhelmed by the radiation levels up there, so at altitude nearly 900km it give up.

So, if equipment to measure radiation level is jammed by enormous radiation, what does that tell you? You can't be there at all. They have to shield the next geigercounter with lead to make it work farer that the first one, but even the second one jammed - just in higher altitude.

I recommend you to research first, so you won't claim such scheer nonsense, as comparing dose 1 166 600 000 higher to skull X-ray :clap:

At least read Van Allen article:

Van Allenovy radiation belts

Van_Allen_rapid_transit.jpg

"the human body will have to be shielded from this radiation, even on a rapid transit through the region"

Van_Allen_survival_chances.jpg

"Since a human being exposed for two days to even 10 roentgens would have only an even chance of survival, the radiation belts obviously present an obstacle to space flight."

Edited by trodas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Original scans of the Van Allen article:

th_VanAllenbeltsarticleMarch195901.jpg th_VanAllenbeltsarticleMarch195902.jpg th_VanAllenbeltsarticleMarch195903.jpg th_VanAllenbeltsarticleMarch195904.jpg th_VanAllenbeltsarticleMarch195905.jpg th_VanAllenbeltsarticleMarch195906.jpg th_VanAllenbeltsarticleMarch195907.jpg th_VanAllenbeltsarticleMarch195908.jpg th_VanAllenbeltsarticleMarch195909.jpg th_VanAllenbeltsarticleMarch195910.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ISS suit is just a few inches away from the surface - such close proximity allows it to reflect some light.

But you are claiming a spacesuit is reflecting light onto a subject 15+ feet away. And that is quite a different thing.

That's what you need to show. So how about it?....

You first need to prove a spacesuit reflection of 15-20 feet. If you can't prove it, then your case fails, the arm is moot.

Not that I needed to, but consider it proven anyway.

A15-reflection_zps6047a5f0.jpg

http://www.hq.nasa.g...15v.1195542.mpg

EDIT: In the LHS bottom image above, the slight in brightness from the previous image is due to the astronaut blocking less of the lunar surface (remember, he is in shadow so not reflecting a great deal of light yet). The fourth image is the killer.

Edited by postbaguk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as17_146_22293.gif

http://www.hq.nasa.g...146-22293HR.jpg - first picture

http://www.hq.nasa.g...146-22294HR.jpg - second picture

Guys! Somebody stolen our rock from the scene! Damn you, one did not even have time to turn and... rock is gone! WTF! :clap:

The astronaut taking the image has obviously moved to the left, and rotated slightly to the right, between taking the two pictures. The rock is hidden behind the very large rock that the other astronaut is stood in front of. You can easily see this by looking at the entire image, and see how the similar sized rocks to the LHS of the very large rock seem to move to the left between images.

22293.jpg22294.jpg

Not forgetting the relative apparent movement of the LM...

Edited by postbaguk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is, what NASA calls "live video feed":

49819_Apollo_17_fading_flag_ceremony.gif

Original video (Spacecraft Films, leč NASA videa jsou Public Domain) there:

http://ulozto.cz/xhyELjA/apollo-17-fading-flag-ceremony-wmv

So, from when "live video" contains cuts to another, differently set, camera? On the Moon should be a) only one TV cam on the Rover and not two, b) in live video is impossible to have cuts!

There was only one live video feed. That feed was recorded onto various different media. Those different media have been spliced together here by the owner of Spacecraft films.

Here's the proof that the scene in question is continuous.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17v.1182126.mov

There is a longer clip here, in mpg format rather than mov format.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17v.1182035.mpg

Of course I doubt that these sheeple see, that the flag is waving without being touched by anyone and what is worser, it first move away from astroNOT... and that hardly can be explained differently that by the air pressure and we all know that air is not on the Moon:

23084_Apollo_15_EVA2_flag_movement.gif

It is explained by static electricity though. Interestingly, the subsequent pendulum-like motion of the flag demonstrates that this was filmed in a vacuum, since there is no dampening due to air.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hasina - yep, but that one I find was locked and this one should be more FUN :yes: Because - basically - this is laughable :ph34r:

Magicaly durable PVC bag and picture in it :D

http://i47.tinypic.com/t7lxrq.jpg

Temperature at the Moon in daylight near equator: 134°C - http://lro.gsfc.nasa.../moonfacts.html

Places, where Apollo supposedly landed (AS16 near equator) - http://latenightastr...nding-sites.jpg

Original image - http://www.hq.nasa.g...117-18841HR.jpg

You're looking at the maximum daytime temperature. Apollo missions landed during the lunar morning when temperatures were much lower.

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/empirical-results-from-diviner-confirm-s-b-law-was-misapplied-to-moon/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hasina - yep, but that one I find was locked and this one should be more FUN :yes: Because - basically - this is laughable :ph34r:

Magicaly durable PVC bag and picture in it :D

t7lxrq.jpg

Temperature at the Moon in daylight near equator: 134°C - http://lro.gsfc.nasa.../moonfacts.html

Places, where Apollo supposedly landed (AS16 near equator) - http://latenightastr...nding-sites.jpg

Original image - http://www.hq.nasa.g...117-18841HR.jpg

Prove that location was that temperature at that time. They landed in lunar morning. It takes TIME to heat the surface.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Radiation Protection During Space Flight, December 1983, Journal of aviation, space and enviromental medicine, E. E. Kovalev

First - SAA, a lower tip of the belts with a very very light radiation of about 2,5 rem/h at 445km:

Radiation_protection_in_space_SAA.jpg

However this "light radiation dip" kill Hubble electronic, so they end up shutting Hubble off when it pass thru this region of increased radioactivity. If they try picture something during the SAA transit, then even when the shutter is closed (!) and the picture should be pitch black then, it looks like that:

hubble_in_saa_radiation_photo_small.jpg

(book The Hubble Wars, page 75)

So, this is how 2.5 rems/h radioactivity looks like!

Now imagine the hell, that it in the belts... add the fact, that aluminium is actually worsening the problem because of secondary particle fragmentation and you get the cooked astroNOT long before the CSM exit the belts :)

Ships with crew can't fly there w/o special shielding: "Flights of manned spacecraft in the central zone of the ERB are impossible without special shielding.".

Radiation_protection_in_space_ERB_impossible.jpg

But no rocket can carry up such shielding. Some astrophysicist suggest that the radiation exposure is "manageble" when there is at least 2 meters of water shielding. Earth give us the equivalent of 10 meters... and if you want go anywhere near the Sun, the requirments grow exponentially.

Why do you think we can't get even to the damn Moon?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

postbaguk -

The rock is hidden behind the very large rock that the other astronaut is stood in front of. You can easily see this by looking at the entire image...

AS17_146_22293_4.jpg

:yes::clap:

Indeed you are right - things can be much easier to be seen looking at entire images :tu: Except it just prove your perspective is way, way off :tu: Thanks for the tip!

Not forgetting the relative apparent movement of the LM...

Where you see LM on these images? :D Looks like that to see the hoax being revealed make you see things... witch there are not :)

There was only one live video feed. That feed was recorded onto various different media. Those different media have been spliced together here by the owner of Spacecraft films.

You are hallucinating again, don't you? First the LM, then "different media" to record live feed... :w00t: This is getting better every second :)))

Could you tell me, how a live feed can be recorded to two different medias and could you elaborate on what media types are "different"? All the Apollo film reels seems to be the same to me, all using the pre-VHS digital tapes, no one ever claimed differently - yet you come with this absolutely unfounded allegation, just to prove that you can't argue with facts on your side, only on false allegations?

Come on :)

flag movement - It is explained by static electricity though.

Sure, just if that was not already debunked by practice testing:

[media=]

[/media]
You're looking at the maximum daytime temperature. Apollo missions landed during the lunar morning when temperatures were much lower.

This is what? A joke? I hope so... First, it is uninportant, when Apollo supposedly landed on Moon. Important is, when the bag and photo was put on the surface and when it was photographed. If you check there:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/magazine/?117

or there:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/images16.html

...you easily at the first look can see, that the picture in question ( AS16-117-18841 ) is taken at the end of EVA 3.

There: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/a16.clsout3.html#1700154 you can read, that: "170:03:17 - At about this time, Charlie places a photo of the Duke Family on the surface and takes three photos, AS16-117- 18839, 18840, and 18841."

From Wiki we got these informations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_16

Launch date - April 16, 1972, 17:54:00 UTC

Lunar landing - April 21, 1972, 02:23:35 UTC, Descartes Highlands

Lunar EVA duration - First 07:11:02, Second 07:23:09, Third 05:40:03

So, without even calculating anything it looks like that the photo placement will be happening in near Moon noon. So, the argument is BUSTED :) This photo cannot be taken on the Moon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Second - what blurry crap you posted? I did not see much from that lowres... I mean, come on! From LEO thru atmosphere (!) we can read what time is on man watches (in ideal conditions). From few miles LRO can't make a better picture?

Prove it. I'll bet you can't

Third - bad news again - according to astrophysics, disturbed Moon surface is lighter that the untouched one, because the untouched one was darkened by Sun for millions of years. So, these tracks should be lighter that the undisturbed surface. The very fact that they are darker means that they are Photoshopped

Prove it. I'll bet you can't

Real Sun in space:

sun_in_space_small.jpg

( http://ww1.prweb.com...958/Slide42.JPG )

Real Sun in space (STS mission):

sun_in_space_2_small.jpg

( http://www.nasa.gov/...900_ys_full.jpg )

Sun from Earth:

slunce_na_horach.jpg

Sun from Earth behind clouds:

slunce_za_mrakyl.jpg

(they are not on the Moon :P )

So, no image of Sun looks like the Apollo "Sun's." That itself is a red flag. How to see the lightbulb in the images? Open a 12MB jpeg from NASA: http://www.lpi.usra....2007e045377.jpg or this one: http://www.lpi.usra....S12/46/6765.jpg and in Photoshop use curves input 247 - 249, output 0. Now you can see, that there is hotspot in the middle of the NASA "Sun's" - on the first image you can even see the reflection near the left side of the reflector!

However what will real Sun look like in this settings?

slunce_na_horach_curves.png

slunce_za_mraky_curves.png

sun_in_space_curves.png

Quite different from NASA "Sun's" :) Busted again :D

Of course anyone the least bit knowledgable of photography would know that the size of a light source is also determined by the focal length, exposure and film. But you didn't take any of that into account. You also neglected the fact that there was likely dust on the lens of the cameras in many Apollo photos. That would definitely affect the image.

Also HILARIOUS that you are using compressed jpegs for your "analyses" (in quotes because they are all flawed, I'm referring to previous posts) and pointing out anomalies that are likely compression artifacts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 15

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.