NASA Post Thousands Of Images Online To Prove Moon Landings Were Real

You may buy that but I don't.

Who took all the 35mm pictures of the Earth then? in deep space, and on the Moon.

You mean the pictures that never have any stars in them, whether they're taken from the moon's surface, lunar orbit, or halfway between the earth and the moon? Since there's not a single star I'm calling them fake.

a reply to: templar knight

First of all, you should have used the version with the higher resolution.



Anyone that has used a scanner for some time (I have been using them for some 15 years, the company where I work scanned more than 1,500,000 documents some years ago and I was one of the people responsible for the quality control) recognises that as something on the physical photo itself that became part of the scanned image.

a reply to: CB328

So if I go out into the desert and snap a picture of the sky and there aren't any stars in it I faked it?

The cameras weren't set where stars would show up. You need a fairly long exposure to get enough light to see them.

originally posted by: CB328
Since there's not a single star I'm calling them fake.

You ignorance is no excuse, as you can learn more about photography.

And yes, there photos from the Apollo missions that show stars, but, obviously, only there's no bright light source in the scene.

I don't remember exactly which photos are the ones I mentioned above, but I look for them and I post them.

originally posted by: intrptr


Imo, thats an over contrasted photo from orbit, top of a lem and foot prints leading back and forth from it.

That's from Apollo 8. It's probably a bit of dross or asbestos....something like that, I think the tracks are just small craters.
There should be a glimpse of the area in that series close to that number, however the quality varies.

NASA images look like the kinda crap you see on facebook. lmfao And, it's not just NASA. China is full of bunk, as well, with their fake images.

No one has ever been to the moon. They're a bunch of paid liars to help further their cause!

I've always wondered why the moon's horizon looks so close. I understand the moon is small compared to the Earth, but it's not that small compared to "mankind". So........

originally posted by: CB328
You may buy that but I don't.

Who took all the 35mm pictures of the Earth then? in deep space, and on the Moon.

You mean the pictures that never have any stars in them, whether they're taken from the moon's surface, lunar orbit, or halfway between the earth and the moon? Since there's not a single star I'm calling them fake.

It also has to do with camera exposure settings when the object being photographed is lit up in full sunlight (such as images of the Moon from the Moon, or images of Earth or the Moon from between the Earth and the Moon).

The brightness of the sunlit Moon is similar to being in the middle of a sunlit parking lot (the Moon has a similar effectiveness as old blacktop pavement does). Due to this brightness, camera exposure must be set to daylight-type settings. At those settings, the shutter does not stay open long enough to capture enough starlight for the stars to appear in the image. A sunlit Earth is even brighter.

If you took a camera that could have its exposure time manually set, and set that exposure for daylight, then tried to take a picture of a starry sky at night with those daytime exposure settings (fast shutter), it would be likely that no stars would show up in the picture, even though you can see the stars with your eyes.


The same is true for images of the lunar sky taken by the Chinese "Chang'e 3" lander. The pictures from the surface showing sky show no stars, and that's because of the exposure settings would be set for the brightness of the lunar surface:

Chang'e 3 data: Lander Terrain Camera (TCAM)

originally posted by: JuJuBee
NASA images look like the kinda crap you see on facebook. lmfao And, it's not just NASA. China is full of bunk, as well, with their fake images.

No one has ever been to the moon. They're a bunch of paid liars to help further their cause!

Good proof of the Apollo 11 moon landing is right above your post,

files.abovetopsecret.com...

Bart Sibrel is a fool!

I think the moon landings were made in Hollywood. They couldn't send anyone to the moon in 9 month's time, with today's technology and know-how, so i doubt they did it then.

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: JuJuBee
NASA images look like the kinda crap you see on facebook. lmfao And, it's not just NASA. China is full of bunk, as well, with their fake images.

No one has ever been to the moon. They're a bunch of paid liars to help further their cause!

Good proof of the Apollo 11 moon landing is right above your post,

files.abovetopsecret.com...

Bart Sibrel is a fool!

NASA is a government agency. Government's lie to the people, at all cost. There is no real proof just manufactured proof. Tons of inconsistencies for mankind's greatest feat.

Everyone talks about images, i'd like to talk about AUDIO. They sure did have great communications, at that distance. And, i can't even get good cell phone service, 40 years later? Yeah, right!

Anything to keep the charade going.

Here are the photos that show stars.

AS15-98-13310


AS15-98-13311


AS15-98-13312


AS15-98-13377


AS15-98-13378


AS15-98-13379


I don't know if these are stars or not, but I include them, as people with knowledge of astronomy may recognise them, if they are stars.

AS15-98-13398


AS15-98-13399


AS15-98-13400


AS15-98-13401


As in any place on Earth, if you want to photograph low light objects like stars you need to use higher sensitivity and/or a longer exposure time. If you have a brighter object in the scene, that brighter object will "flood" the photo with light.

originally posted by: JuJuBee
I've always wondered why the moon's horizon looks so close. I understand the moon is small compared to the Earth, but it's not that small compared to "mankind". So........

Because we use atmospheric thickness as a visual clue to help judge distance.

Even on a non-humid day, the moisture, other atmospheric gasses, and thermal distortion cause things that are farther away from us to look a bit hazier compared to things that are close to us. Therefore, when we see a horizon with no haze, our brains translate that as a visual clue that what we are looking at is close relatively close to us. More haze means father away.

That usually works fine on Earth, but our brains could be fooled on the Moon where there is virtually no atmosphere to cause any of that haze. Therefore, lunar horizons that appear to be close could actually be farther away than they appear.

a reply to: JuJuBee

Where are you getting mine months from? JFK made his speech about getting to the moon by the end of the decade in 1961, and they landed on the moon in 1969.

originally posted by: JuJuBee
... Tons of inconsistencies for mankind's greatest feat....

It's been my experience that all of the inconsistencies alleged by Moon Hoax believers turn out not to be inconsistencies at all when a little critical thinking and the understanding of nature or technology are applied.

The inconsistencies that I have seen people claim have all turned out to be the result of the claimant misunderstanding the facts, or misunderstanding nature or technology.

A simplified example is the "no stars" issue or the "non-parallel shadows" issue. If people understood photography, then they would not see those things as being inconsistencies.

a reply to: ArMaPThose photos are soooo fake. You wouldn't see stars through such a bright light source. More than that, those stars wouldn't be brighter than the brightest object in those photos. I'd also like to know how a camera could capture an image that's "LIGHT YEARS" away.

If you add up all the crap we've been taught, you'll see the contradictions in their fabricated lies, to keep their scam going. This is the same agency that came up with "aliens" and "ufo's". And still, there is no concrete proof of either. They flash a bunch of photos and say: "here's the proof"?

Maaaaan, i've been through Arizona, and it looks like the moon. hahhahhaah

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: JuJuBee

Where are you getting mine months from? JFK made his speech about getting to the moon by the end of the decade in 1961, and they landed on the moon in 1969.

I was wondering that too

There were nine Apollo missions planned even before JFK's speech, after the speech, what they needed to do, was to decide as to what already mooted method out of three to get there, and they choose the mothership orbiter and lander method, the riskiest method in fact. Then, they needed to get on with it.
Jeez, some people just cannot give credit where it's due.
As for, 'all done in a studio' no studio would have made the pictures we saw as bad as that, they might have done it with poorer quality if they wanted to cover up any stitches, but not to the extent of the actual broadcasts we saw.

a reply to: JuJuBee

They see the stars the same way we do. How do you think a camera on earth captures pictures of stars?

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: JuJuBee

Where are you getting mine months from? JFK made his speech about getting to the moon by the end of the decade in 1961, and they landed on the moon in 1969.

I was wondering that too

There were nine Apollo missions planned even before JFK's speech, after the speech, what they needed to do, was to decide as to what already mooted method out of three to get there, and they choose the mothership orbiter and lander method, the riskiest method in fact. Then, they needed to get on with it.
Jeez, some people just cannot give credit where it's due.
As for, 'all done in a studio' no studio would have made the pictures we saw as bad as that, they might have done it with poorer quality if they wanted to cover up any stitches, but not to the extent of the actual broadcasts we saw.

Give credit where credit is due? But, THEY HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING. If they did, we'd all be convinced. So, why do people "doubt", if NASA has so many pictures?

That's what happens with a HISTORY of lies. People tend to believe you're a liar.

I do digital editing for about 15 years now and i can manipulate ANY photo. I can see all the flaws in NASA's pictures. Sure, it looks convincing to the untrained eye, but that's about the only people it fools, which is most. And really, isn't that all they need to fool? They don't have to convince everyone, just the majority. That's the point you "believers" don't understand.

originally posted by: JuJuBee
a reply to: ArMaPThose photos are soooo fake. You wouldn't see stars through such a bright light source. More than that, those stars wouldn't be brighter than the brightest object in those photos. I'd also like to know how a camera could capture an image that's "LIGHT YEARS" away.

No they are not fake, they show actual stars exactly where they should be as well as Mercury and Venus. You can educate yourself here

onebigmonkey.com...

The final image ArMaP posted shows the window through which the photographs were taken, and they aren't stars (as best I can tell).

If you add up all the crap we've been taught, you'll see the contradictions in their fabricated lies, to keep their scam going. This is the same agency that came up with "aliens" and "ufo's". And still, there is no concrete proof of either. They flash a bunch of photos and say: "here's the proof"?

I don't see you providing any proof. If you read the site I linked to (it's mine) you'll find that actually it is possible to look at the photos and prove that they show what they have always claimed to show, you just need to put the time in instead of deciding in advance what the answer is.

a reply to: JuJuBee

Because old film scanned into digital is always going to scan perfectly without any artifacts that make them look odd.