Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

How many of you actually believe the Moon Landing was fake?

1…910121415…29

Comments

  • #332
    Joe10000
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,295 ✭✭✭Joe10000


    How many people would have to stay quiet for something like this not to get out ?? Forget the science, look at human nature.

    Same with 911, same with JFK, you can find holes in any story but there is no way the 10's or 100's of people "involved" didn't go home and tell someone what they did that day.


  • #333
    namloc1980
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,613 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    uprising2 wrote: »
    The images were taken in direct sun, the shadows were not, the difference in both is well beyond the limitations of kodachrome, thats a fact, these both are NOT withing the dynamic range, even with 7% reflection.

    So you keep telling us, yet you can't explain how sunlit and shadow sides are visible in the images I and other posted and you have NOT YET posted any pictures that demonstrate what you're talking about. Until you do then your point is moot.


  • #334
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    uprising2 wrote: »
    The expert ripped apart by a stand up comedian, thats funny.
    It would be, if it had happened.

    And why don't you just trust Phil Plait's years of experience like you are insisting we do with yours?
    uprising2 wrote: »
    Surely being there 40 years ago would have told them this, a simple test of the "moon dust and rocks"?.....No?
    Because particle physics has advanced in the last 40 years?
    Because the detection methods have become more sensitive and more accurate?
    Because it's the first time such a detector was able to analyse the raditation from the moon?
    Because the samples on Earth aren't getting bombarded by the vast amount of cosmic radiation?
    Because it's a reading over the entire Moon not just a few kilograms of samples?

    So Uprising what simple tests could they have done?


  • #335
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    King Mob wrote: »
    It would be, if it had happened.

    And why don't you just trust Phil Plait's years of experience like you are insisting we do with yours?

    Because he is wrong. Still comming up with the same old excuses we've heard over and over. As I pointed out in earlier posts, I doubt if even Nasa would support his claims.

    This debate has become a dodgy photo contest and a shouting match. Put forward an argument for yourself in stead of critisising everyone else's opinions.

    Solar flares could have killed the astronauts, scientists speculated astronauts could jump as high as 14ft. The measurement of radiation in the ISS increased when they triad to use aluminium as a sheild.......... there's a hundred and one reasons your not mentioning.


  • #336
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    King Mob wrote: »


    Because particle physics has advanced in the last 40 years?
    Because the detection methods have become more sensitive and more accurate?

    The had another look at the Apollo moon rocks and had a look at the ejected debris from the lunar impacts using these scanners and found they were not the same. Different to each other.
    You won't believe the moon landing hoax untill Sky News tells you it's so. You could be waiting.


  • Advertisement
  • #337
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Because he is wrong. Still comming up with the same old excuses we've heard over and over. As I pointed out in earlier posts, I doubt if even Nasa would support his claims.
    They are the same old excuses, because they are the right answers and you guys keep bringing up the same old nonsense arguments.
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    This debate has become a dodgy photo contest and a shouting match. Put forward an argument for yourself in stead of critisising everyone else's opinions.
    You see the opinions being put forward are based on completely stupid premises. So why shouldn't I criticise them? You guys make it so easy....
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Solar flares could have killed the astronauts,
    So could a hull leak, or an electrical failure, or anything really.
    But none of those things did kill the astronauts.
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    scientists speculated astronauts could jump as high as 14ft.
    Source? Relevance? Point?
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    The measurement of radiation in the ISS increased when they triad to use aluminium as a sheild..........
    Again source for this?
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    there's a hundred and one reasons your not mentioning.
    Yes, because it so much easy to make up a myth and repeat it than it is to actually do research and learn the truth.

    So why don't you pick out something you think is irrefutable proof that it was impossible to go to the Moon and we can focus on that?


  • #338
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    So you keep telling us, yet you can't explain how sunlit and shadow sides are visible in the images I and other posted and you have NOT YET posted any pictures that demonstrate what you're talking about. Until you do then your point is moot.

    Kodachrome:
    020610224124fisherman.jpg

    Kodachrome:
    3784539978_dd535d0a3e.jpg

    Kodachrome
    6a00d83451d75169e20115719f44fa970b-300wi

    Kodachrome




    Silhouette-photography_six-austins01.jpg

    Kodachrome
    luxor_1997.jpg


  • #339
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    The had another look at the Apollo moon rocks and had a look at the ejected debris from the lunar impacts using these scanners and found they were not the same. Different to each other.
    Well I can't cause I've neither access to either sample nor the expertise to analyse them.
    How are they not the same?
    How do you know they are not the same?
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    You won't believe the moon landing hoax untill Sky News tells you it's so. You could be waiting.
    Well I don't watch Sky News....
    Nor would I believe them, unless they presented some compelling evidence.

    Can you say the same thing I wonder? What evidence would you accept that would convince you that we went to the Moon?


  • #340
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    uprising2 wrote: »
    Kodachrome:

    Kodachrome:


    Kodachrome


    Kodachrome

    Kodachrome
    Wow uprising, after bitching to us about the angle of the sun you post stuff like this. It's almost like you're dishonestly cherry picking photos...

    And hey I can even see that baby's back...


  • #341
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    King Mob wrote: »
    It would be, if it had happened.

    And why don't you just trust Phil Plait's years of experience like you are insisting we do with yours?


    Because particle physics has advanced in the last 40 years?
    Because the detection methods have become more sensitive and more accurate?
    Because it's the first time such a detector was able to analyse the raditation from the moon?
    Because the samples on Earth aren't getting bombarded by the vast amount of cosmic radiation?
    Because it's a reading over the entire Moon not just a few kilograms of samples?

    So Uprising what simple tests could they have done?

    They could have took a geiger counter to the moon, you know them things they measure radiation with.

    History
    Hans Geiger developed a device (that would later be called the "Geiger counter") in 1908 together with Ernest Rutherford. This counter was only capable of detecting alpha particles. In 1928, Geiger and Walther Müller (a PhD student of Geiger) improved the counter so that it could detect more types of ionizing radiation.
    The current version of the "Geiger counter" is called the halogen counter. It was invented in 1947 by Sidney H. Liebson (Phys. Rev. 72, 602–608 (1947)). It has superseded the earlier Geiger counter because of its much longer life. The devices also used a lower operating voltage.[1


  • Advertisement
  • #342
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    uprising2 wrote: »
    They could have took a geiger counter to the moon, you know them things they measure radiation with.
    Not sure if they did. But How would have a small gieger counter over the tiny area of the moon been able to give an accurate figure for the entire moon?

    And yes, I know what a gieger counter is, thanks. It doesn't add to your silly argument.


  • #343
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    King Mob wrote: »
    Wow uprising, after bitching to us about the angle of the sun you post stuff like this. It's almost like you're dishonestly cherry picking photos...

    And hey I can even see that baby's back...

    The baby pic was taken when the sun dim, nothing like intense sunlight encountered onthe moon, the man fishing would be a close example to the aldrin shot with shadow coming towards the photographer, he even has a reflective surface to reflect all that light back at him.

    You seem to be getting desperate now.

    Also, something you should know about with all your science quotes etc, the earths atmosphere diffuses light, theres none on the moon, so moon shots would be even more harsh, we'll find out when they get there eventually, if they do that is.


  • #344
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    uprising2 wrote: »
    The baby pic was taken when the sun dim, nothing like intense sunlight encountered onthe moon, the man fishing would be a close example to the aldrin shot with shadow coming towards the photographer, he even has a reflective surface to reflect all that light back at him.

    You seem to be getting desperate now.
    So of all of the ones you posted only one of them is an equivalent to the photos you're criticising. And one of them even shows something you said was impossible.
    Why post the other ones exactly?

    And before I even take a crack at the fisherman photo why don't you hold yourself to the same standards you're expecting of everyone else and prove that it's a kodachrome photo and show that the light and angle of the sun is equivalent to the moon photo.


  • #345
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    King Mob wrote: »
    Not sure if they did. But How would have a small gieger counter over the tiny area of the moon been able to give an accurate figure for the entire moon?

    And yes, I know what a gieger counter is, thanks. It doesn't add to your silly argument.

    It would have told them what they now know, the radiation on the moon is much more intense that previously thought, had they ever been there they would have known that, here read again:

    updated 12/17/2009 6:08:09 PM ET 2009-12-17T23:08:09

    In a surprising discovery, scientists have found that the moon itself is a source of potentially deadly radiation.

    So 40 years after being there, they make a surprising discovery......... The moon itself is a source of potentially deadly radiation.
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34470642/ns/technology_and_science-space/

    Haha think about it kingmob, don't let your highly charged emotions get in the way of rational thought.


  • #346
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    King Mob wrote: »
    So of all of the ones you posted only one of them is an equivalent to the photos you're criticising. And one of them even shows something you said was impossible.
    Why post the other ones exactly?

    And before I even take a crack at the fisherman photo why don't you hold yourself to the same standards you're expecting of everyone else and prove that it's a kodachrome photo and show that the light and angle of the sun is equivalent to the moon photo.


    The "back of the child pic would need a much slower shutter speed than a glaring sun photo, that would account for you being able to see his back, had the sun been high in the sky, a much faster shutter speed would have been needed and you would see a silhoutte, my mistake for posting that pic because a setting sun, blocked by cloud simply doesn't have the intensity of sun on the moon.
    I posted it because the sun is hitting my laptop screen and making it hard for me to see properly and I dint see the detail on his back TBH, I could take it down, but I won't.


  • #347
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    uprising2 wrote: »
    It would have told them what they now know, the radiation on the moon is much more intense that previously thought, had they ever been there they would have known that, here read again:
    No, it would have given them an inaccurate reading of the radiation in their tiny area of the moon. They wouldn't have been able to tell which radiation is from deep space and which is being emitted from the moon, hand held geiger counters don't work that way Uprising.
    The news story is about a specialised detector on the LRO, 40 years more advanced than what was available on Apollo, taking readings over the entire area of the Moon.
    The scientific goal of the Apollo mission was primarily geological, returning samples of the surface and detailing the landscape. Measuring the exact amount and source of the radiation wasn't a priority.

    Seriously Uprising, this silly new argument of yours is undoing all the credibility you had going with you photographic expertise.....
    uprising2 wrote: »
    updated 12/17/2009 6:08:09 PM ET 2009-12-17T23:08:09

    In a surprising discovery, scientists have found that the moon itself is a source of potentially deadly radiation.

    So 40 years after being there, they make a surprising discovery......... The moon itself is a source of potentially deadly radiation.
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34470642/ns/technology_and_science-space/

    Haha think about it kingmob, don't let your highly charged emotions get in the way of rational thought.
    You know for a guy who pretends to not buy what the mainstream media is telling him, you seem to rely on it a lot....
    uprising2 wrote: »
    The "back of the child pic would need a much slower shutter speed than a glaring sun photo, that would account for you being able to see his back, had the sun been high in the sky, a much faster shutter speed would have been needed and you would see a silhoutte, my mistake for posting that pic because a setting sun, blocked by cloud simply doesn't have the intensity of sun on the moon.
    I posted it because the sun is hitting my laptop screen and making it hard for me to see properly and I dint see the detail on his back TBH, I could take it down, but I won't.
    And yet you're telling us that the moon photos must be fake because of your eye for detail...

    And so I take it that only people who disagree with you have to prove and verify the photos they post then?


  • #348
    robtri
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,425 ✭✭✭robtri


    uprising2 wrote: »
    I posted it because the sun is hitting my laptop screen and making it hard for me to see properly and I dint see the detail on his back TBH, I could take it down, but I won't.

    that is just classic..... have u actually read what you wrote .. seriously.. some eye for detail and know all about light and it effects you have...


  • #349
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    AFAIK the unmanned probes had shielding just to get the readings down to a measurable level. The level of argument put forward on this topic here is laughable IMO. If people don't want to believe the obvious fakery of the moon hoax then fine. I can't be bothered reading anymore tripe or posting responses to people who will not face facts.

    If someone has any actual proof the landings took place could they please get involved here.


  • #350
    Divorce Referendum
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Divorce Referendum


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    AFAIK the unmanned probes had shielding just to get the readings down to a measurable level. The level of argument put forward on this topic here is laughable IMO. If people don't want to believe the obvious fakery of the moon hoax then fine. I can't be bothered reading anymore tripe or posting responses to people who will not face facts.

    If someone has any actual proof the landings took place could they please get involved here.

    The level of argument put forward by you is laughable to be honest. What so called evidence have you put forward? It is non existent imo. You cant seem to post videos or links for some reason so how are you posting evidence rather just your opinion. Obvious fakery? Obvious to you only i would say.


  • #351
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    I'll take that as a no then. No proof.


  • Advertisement
  • #352
    Divorce Referendum
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Divorce Referendum


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    I'll take that as a no then. No proof.

    Ya its glaring how little proof you have posted to say they are fake because you know you it is a conspiracy theory and with you believing in it I would say it would be up to you to prove they are fake. Its also interesting that you also admitted that you only think certain aspects were faked earlier in the thread. I think you are little confused to be honest.


  • #353
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    King Mob wrote: »
    No, it would have given them an inaccurate reading of the radiation in their tiny area of the moon. They wouldn't have been able to tell which radiation is from deep space and which is being emitted from the moon, hand held geiger counters don't work that way Uprising.
    The news story is about a specialised detector on the LRO, 40 years more advanced than what was available on Apollo, taking readings over the entire area of the Moon.
    The scientific goal of the Apollo mission was primarily geological, returning samples of the surface and detailing the landscape. Measuring the exact amount and source of the radiation wasn't a priority.

    OK, answer me this, all the moon rocks, soil samples, 300kg of them you've quoted having on earth, has the radiation faded away after 40 years. If it has thats new to me as I thought radiation lasts much longer than that.
    And don't tell me radiation on the moon wasn't something scientists all over earth would be interested in or nasa for that matter, radiation levels would have been of huge importance for too many reasons to mention.

    King Mob wrote: »
    Seriously Uprising, this silly new argument of yours is undoing all the credibility you had going with you photographic expertise.....

    Credibility I had?, I still have it, this photographic argument is far from over, nothing has been undone, it was just another fact pointing to the unlikey event ever happening.
    And it was a tactical post also, photographic film fog's with exposure to radiation, the hasselblad's on the moon, the lens and optics had zero modification to deal with that, I'll get into that at another time, but for now were talking faked images.
    Another point, the camera's were left on the moon, I'm sure it would have had a nice display case in the space museum, but thats not what we're debating here either.
    King Mob wrote: »
    You know for a guy who pretends to not buy what the mainstream media is telling him, you seem to rely on it a lot....
    Kingmob I learned a long time ago that if I post anything from the alternative media it will be shot down in it's tracks by the likes of you and others, it's a regular occurance here, so rather than give the enemy ammo, I use tact.tory on fox or whatever
    Besides the MSM are biased, but thats not to say trustworthy news doesn't come from them, Madeline McCann for instance, she was on all the MSM news channel's, the news is true, she vanished, thats a known fact, I wouldn't be so stupid as to say it's crap just because I saw the story on fox or whatever.
    King Mob wrote: »
    And yet you're telling us that the moon photos must be fake because of your eye for detail...

    I'm saying I 100% believe they are fake, because my experience with said film and similar tells me that, I know that no matter what I say, it will fall on deaf ears with you.
    King Mob wrote: »
    And so I take it that only people who disagree with you have to prove and verify the photos they post then?

    No, but I looked at the photo and a number of things stuck out that said to me the photo was shot on negative film, the sun was high above the photographer, evident from the fact the car was sitting on it's own shadow.
    Negative as I stated earlier is exposed for midtone/shadow, if this were done with transparency anything brighter than the light level wuld wash out.
    Negative has twice the dynamic range of transparency for starters, and even with a badly exposed negative a printing technique know as "dodging and burning" can make it almost perfect, dark area's can be brightened and viceversa, the same is not true with slide, it's hit and miss, even the latest top of the range film SLR's have some trouble with slide.
    The light meter I showed in the photo's yesterday was bought exclusively for transparency film.

    I cannot just believe something because the majority do, especially something I have experience with and know in my heart and soul cannot be as they say it is.


  • #354
    namloc1980
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,613 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    I'll take that as a no then. No proof.

    How about the 382kg of moonrocks returned by six Apollo missions which have been studied extensively with the results published in science journals and are unlike anything on earth. Before you say "but unmanned vehicles could have brought them back". In 3 unmanned sample return missions the Soviets returned 320g of moondust or 0.0008% of what Apollo returned.

    Or how about the Russians and other independent sites such as Jodrell Bank tracking the spacecraft. Before the usual "but the Russians couldn't track spacecraft" line is trotted out.....the Russians returned the first images from the surface of the Moon with Luna 9 in 1966 - independently confirmed by Jodrell Bank incidently.


  • #355
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    robtri wrote: »
    that is just classic..... have u actually read what you wrote .. seriously.. some eye for detail and know all about light and it effects you have...

    Doesn't change a single thing though, I had just read "you havent posted one pic yet", so I googled images and posted those in haste, I have plenty of slides showing with the exact properties I'm disputng, but I can't/won't be uploading them for various reasons.
    Don't let this one error stand in the way of common sense.
    I can post more, but for what?, will you all suddenly change your inbuilt opinion?, i think not.


  • #356
    GhostInTheRuins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,015 ✭✭✭GhostInTheRuins


    uprising2 wrote: »
    AS11-40-5903.jpg

    I think that image has been brightend up by nasa, it's a very iconic photo so the chances are they brightened up the shadow areas so that the image would be "friendlier" for the general public. I think this is closer to the original. Massive difference in the shadows on the left hand side.

    the-moon-walk-screensaver.jpg


  • #357
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    uprising2 wrote: »
    OK, answer me this, all the moon rocks, soil samples, 300kg of them you've quoted having on earth, has the radiation faded away after 40 years. If it has thats new to me as I thought radiation lasts much longer than that.
    And don't tell me radiation on the moon wasn't something scientists all over earth would be interested in or nasa for that matter, radiation levels would have been of huge importance for too many reasons to mention.
    It depends on type of radiation and radioactivity you're taking about.
    The radiation being talked about which is coming from the moon is both radiation from space and radiation from the soil of the moon when the first type of radiation causes the soil to become radioactive.
    When a substance is radioactive it is unstable and it emits particles (which are the radiation) until it becomes stable again, and is no longer radioactive.
    So once the soil samples are taken away from the comic radiation, they quickly lose their radioactivity as the material they are made of (silicon mostly AFAIR) is not normally prone to radioactivity.

    Now as far as Geiger counters are concerned they would measure a certain amount of radiation on the moon. And they had a fair idea of the amount of radiation the astronauts would be subjected to, and it wasn't an insurmountable problem.
    Until detailed study by the LRO, scientist weren't sure exactly what percentage of the radiation was from cosmic rays or was from the moon. The idea was that during the Lunar night the soil wouldn't give off as much radiation as it's shielded from the cosmic rays. However the study showed a much greater percentage than thought. And so Nasa now has to factor this in when they are planning long duration missions.
    uprising2 wrote: »
    And it was a tactical post also, photographic film fog's with exposure to radiation, the hasselblad's on the moon, the lens and optics had zero modification to deal with that, I'll get into that at another time, but for now were talking faked images.
    Best not to get into it at all, as it's totally debunked nonsense.
    uprising2 wrote: »
    Another point, the camera's were left on the moon, I'm sure it would have had a nice display case in the space museum, but thats not what we're debating here either.
    To save weight and get more lunar samples. Simple really.
    uprising2 wrote: »
    I'm saying I 100% believe they are fake, because my experience with said film and similar tells me that, I know that no matter what I say, it will fall on deaf ears with you.
    And that's the thing uprising, you're the close minded one.
    I'm willing to change my mind about the moon landings but all you have presented is your own biased opinion and refused to provide any back up for your claims.

    Is there any evidence that you would accept that would change your mind?


  • #358
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    AFAIK the unmanned probes had shielding just to get the readings down to a measurable level. The level of argument put forward on this topic here is laughable IMO. If people don't want to believe the obvious fakery of the moon hoax then fine. I can't be bothered reading anymore tripe or posting responses to people who will not face facts.

    If someone has any actual proof the landings took place could they please get involved here.
    What proof would you accept?


  • #359
    namloc1980
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,613 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    uprising2 wrote: »
    And it was a tactical post also, photographic film fog's with exposure to radiation, the hasselblad's on the moon, the lens and optics had zero modification to deal with that, I'll get into that at another time,

    Hasselblads were also used during the Skylab missions during the 70's with no evidence of this fogging. The early Space shuttle missions also had film cameras. Maybe the Skylab and space shuttle were faked as well?


  • #360
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    How about the 382kg of moonrocks returned by six Apollo missions which have been studied extensively with the results published in science journals and are unlike anything on earth. Before you say "but unmanned vehicles could have brought them back". In 3 unmanned sample return missions the Soviets returned 320g of moondust or 0.0008% of what Apollo returned.

    Or how about the Russians and other independent sites such as Jodrell Bank tracking the spacecraft. Before the usual "but the Russians couldn't track spacecraft" line is trotted out.....the Russians returned the first images from the surface of the Moon with Luna 9 in 1966 - independently confirmed by Jodrell Bank incidently.

    If you care to read back over my posts from days ago you'll understand that all this has already been discussed. More horse poo............. next please! Jodrell Bank isn't independent BTW.


  • Advertisement
  • #361
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    GhostInTheRuins wrote: »
    I think that image has been brightend up by nasa, it's a very iconic photo so the chances are they brightened up the shadow areas so that the image would be "friendlier" for the general public. I think this is closer to the original. Massive difference in the shadows on the left hand side.

    the-moon-walk-screensaver.jpg

    You're correct. NASA have taken it upon themselves recently to alter many of the original photos to make them more credible. The originals are still available, which makes it more sad TBH


Advertisement