It wasn't possible (from a technical perspective) to fake the moonladning in 1969 (4 Viewers)

[bergs]

What in the name of things that fuck is this?

WHEN DID PCF TURN INTO THE GOP NUTBALL CRAZY LUNATIC FUCKTARD HOUSE?

 

[dimperdoo]

Look at the right thruster gizmo. You can clearly see the sun reflecting off it

"clearly see the sun reflecting" because the "thruster gizmo" is reflective. the "shadow" on the left thruster gizmo is actually a reflection of the dark side of the lander.

it's only reasonable to wonder if the lunar landings may have been faked. the problem now is, with today's technology {likely not as advanced as tomorrow's or next week but moreso than the 50s & 60s} we would readily be able to discount the sham. & yet all there is to discount is easily explainable phenomena such as the above. moreover, with today's technology the landing sites can be photographed/viewed even if by 3rd party {no we can't observe them first hand from the earth's surface} but yeah, there is stuff left behind {including footprints} that got there somehow.

that's where "reasonable" becomes a stretch; as elaborate as the hoax must continue to be, occam's razor comes in to play

 

[DJ Mack]

I took astronomy at a university. I saw the laser apparatus fire and measure our distance.

Some would say you saw a laser fire and a predetermined number flash up on a computer screen. I mean, did you hand calibrate that laser with a stopwatch to make sure it was accurate?

We really need a smiley for lighting a stick of dynamite and walking away.

 

[gopherblue]

Uhhh....no. Just...no. First of all, the camera is clearly in the shadow as well, so no lens flare. However, the subject is well lit, even though it is in the shadow of the LEM. How can this be? Clearly "fill light" is being provided. But from where? Where, oh, where? Oh, I don't know...maybe the fucking surface? Aha, yes! Surprise! The surface is a very good ambient light reflector. This is repeatedly demonstrated from anyone's backyard when one looks at the fucking moon. As is also clearly apparent in the picture, the astronaut and the LEM are both being lit, mostly from below. The same principle applies in all photography...as demonstrated in this shot, which was also taken on the moon:

View attachment 46784

Hell, the light source (hint: the sun) is also in a similar position. So is the astronaut and her craft. And so are the photographers. And these blokes are shooting with no flash or other artificial light sources. And while their lenses aren't shielded from the sun by a massive LEM, their lens shades are serving that purpose. And that fella on the left? Providing reflected fill light, from below. I will bet you any amount that their photographs are exposed correctly, with both the astronaut in her protective gear, her lunar lander, and the surrounding lunar surface pleasingly rendered.

I can't believe not one of you mooks gave this post a bloody "like." Not even @courage, and I fucking put Courage-bait in the bloody post.

 

[Chicken Rob]

I can't believe not one of you mooks gave this post a bloody "like." Not even @courage, and I fucking put Courage-bait in the bloody post.

My likes don't always stick when surfing on my phone. Of course I like bikini models on jetskis passed as lunar exploration.

 

[Chicken Rob]

Some would say you saw a laser fire and a predetermined number flash up on a computer screen. I mean, did you hand calibrate that laser with a stopwatch to make sure it was accurate?

We really need a smiley for lighting a stick of dynamite and walking away.

I measured other distances with the same tool, so I'm inclined to believe it was working correctly.

I'm also inclined to believe that my little state university is too incompetent to be part of a global coverup.

 

[courage]

I can't believe not one of you mooks gave this post a bloody "like." Not even @courage, and I fucking put Courage-bait in the bloody post.

I'm more of a water skier, not a Sea-dooer.

 

[Chicken Rob]

I'm more of a water skier, not a Sea-dooer.

Perhaps I'll fix that some day.

 

[gopherblue]

I'm more of a water skier, not a Sea-dooer.

Better?

 

[dimperdoo]

I'm also inclined to believe that my little state university is too incompetent to be part of a global coverup.

pretty much this ~extrapolated out to every little university et al

 

[dennis63]

The Russians would have done everything possible to prove it was a hoax and they couldnt. I just dont get why there are so many legitimate questions about it's authenticity.

Good point. I agree completely that the Russians would have spilled on a hoax, but didn't.

The reason they didn't is the Russians knew the science. So did the Americans, back in the 60s.

The reason there are questions is that people forward theories (about camera light, radiation, flags appearing to waive, footprints without moisture, etc.) but don't know the science.

They don't really know about light. They don't know about objects moving in the vacuum of space, or in reduced gravity, or many other things.

Those who consider the questions "legitimate" are viewing them from how things would work (or look) on Earth, not on the Moon. The trouble is, the astronauts really were on the Moon.

 

[pltrgyst]

Guys. Everyone knows the moon isn't real.

"Everyone knows the moon is made of cheese." -- Wallace.

 

[pltrgyst]

I thought this issue was long dead. They left stuff behind on the moon THAT CAN BE SEEN WITH A TELESCOPE !

Now come on -- he said he has an "open mind", so don't go filling it up with reason and logic.

 

[pltrgyst]

(unintended dupe...similar to the OP)