50 year old video camera on moon still works

[Cobwebs]

:banghead:

 

[Cobwebs]

Nasa confirms Odysseus tipped over.:roflblack:



50 year old video camera with crystal clear pictures fails to capture event.:joke:

 

[Snoking1127]

Odysseus, attention on deck!

 

[Cobwebs]

Proof no one or anything from Nasa has ever been anywhere near the moon.



Anyone see the glaringly obvious mistake/missing evidence in this photo?

 

[Peter Aawen]

Proof no one or anything from Nasa has ever been anywhere near the moon.

View attachment 207128

Anyone see the glaringly obvious mistake/missing evidence in this photo?

Yeah, the tires aren't flat, worn out, or out of round!! :roflblack:



So the tires in that pic are clearly fake or photo-shopped... Just the tires in that pic, tho!

 

[Cobwebs]

Yeah, the tires aren't flat, worn out, or out of round!! :roflblack:



So the tires in that pic are clearly fake or photo-shopped... Just the tires in that pic, tho!

Huh........... never noticed that, good pickup Peter!:clap:
No, it's something else, something really incriminating, something that blows the lid on all this space mumbo jumbo stuff.
Hint.......... it's something to do with Hollywood.

 

[Cobwebs]

Too hard? Alright it's the complete lack of stars.
There's tons of other evidence the whole show is a money laundering scam. Even the astronauts admit it.

 

[Peter Aawen]

Too hard? Alright it's the complete lack of stars.
There's tons of other evidence the whole show is a money laundering scam. Even the astronauts admit it.

Yeah, no! :roflblack:

The only reason you see & can take photos of stars like we do here on Earth is because of the contrast between the ambient & background light. If you go find a spot with no ambient/background light, you can get phenomenal pics of the night sky with billions of stars. However, if you include any of the surface/foreground with all of the light & colours & contrast in it, you just don't see anywhere near so many stars even at night, let alone on a bright sunny day.

It works pretty much exactly the same way on the sunny/daylight side of the moon, where there's a TON of very bright ambient & reflected surface light, so much so that if you want to take a photo of the stars, you hafta focus in on a small section of sky high overhead that excludes EVERYTHING from the frame except the stars; and even then, you will barely get an image of 'stars' in the sky because of all the bright light around you. Conversely, if you want to take a pic of anything on the very brighty lit surface of the moon, as in the pic you show, you hafta tone the contrast down so much that the stars in the sky behind are completely wiped out, just like they are in our daylight 'star' pics here on Earth, otherwise the flare from the close-in stuff turns the image into one exceedingly bright blur with little if any definition. :banghead:

Just sayin'

 

[Cobwebs]

Yeah, no! :roflblack:

The only reason you see & can take photos of stars like we do here on Earth is because of the contrast between the ambient & background light. If you go find a spot with no ambient/background light, you can get phenomenal pics of the night sky with billions of stars. However, if you include any of the surface/foreground with all of the light & colours & contrast in it, you just don't see anywhere near so many stars even at night, let alone on a bright sunny day.

It works pretty much exactly the same way on the sunny/daylight side of the moon, where there's a TON of very bright ambient & reflected surface light, so much so that if you want to take a photo of the stars, you hafta focus in on a small section of sky high overhead that excludes EVERYTHING from the frame except the stars; and even then, you will barely get an image of 'stars' in the sky because of all the bright light around you. Conversely, if you want to take a pic of anything on the very brighty lit surface of the moon, as in the pic you show, you hafta tone the contrast down so much that the stars in the sky behind are completely wiped out, just like they are in our daylight 'star' pics here on Earth, otherwise the flare from the close-in stuff turns the image into one exceedingly bright blur with little if any definition. :banghead:

Just sayin'

Sky should be blue then.

 

[Peter Aawen]

Sky should be blue then.

Except the sky here on Earth is only 'blue' cos of the way we see the atmosphere refracting light.

There's very little atmosphere on the Moon, so there's nowhere near as much refraction of light, so we see the sky as black as a result. :thumbup:

 

[Cobwebs]

Except the sky here on Earth is only 'blue' cos of the way we see the atmosphere refracting light.

There's very little atmosphere on the Moon, so there's nowhere near as much refraction of light, so we see the sky as black as a result. :thumbup:

And we are shown pictures of Earth from the moon in glorious colour as the flag waves in the breeze that doesn't exist and shadows run at ninety degrees to each other on a film set by Stanley Kubrick.

 

[Peter Aawen]

Yeah, a spring loaded flag that might look like it's fluttering as it springs out, or even as it hangs there afterwards cos the spring isn't entirely resistant to the Moon's gravity; and shadows that run in different directions due to reflected light shining from different directions. You can see all that here on Earth too.

One other thing you can see, well, actually it's more than one, if you've got a good enough telescope, is some of these items & landers etc STILL ON THE MOON - or did Stanley Kubrick fake that too, and there actually ISN'T a Moon at all, it's all just a figment of our imagination?!

 

[Poppie65]

And we are shown pictures of Earth from the moon in glorious colour as the flag waves in the breeze that doesn't exist and shadows run at ninety degrees to each other on a film set by Stanley Kubrick.

I remember asking about this when I was in grammar school. How can a flag wave like that in the pictures if there isn't any wind on the moon. My teacher answered...you're not seeing the flag wave. What you see is the flag being propped up with rods to hold it open. And after looking closer it's very easy to see the creases and wrinkles in the flags as they're hang from those rods.

 

[Cobwebs]

Yeah, a spring loaded flag that might look like it's fluttering as it springs out, or even as it hangs there afterwards cos the spring isn't entirely resistant to the Moon's gravity; and shadows that run in different directions due to reflected light shining from different directions. You can see all that here on Earth too.

One other thing you can see, well, actually it's more than one, if you've got a good enough telescope, is some of these items & landers etc STILL ON THE MOON - or did Stanley Kubrick fake that too, and there actually ISN'T a Moon at all, it's all just a figment of our imagination?!

All of which can be faked on a film set so no compelling evidence there. No telescope on earth can film anything landing or sitting on the surface. How convenient. The pixels shown on the photos available of left over equipment are supposedly from a moon orbiter 30 miles above the surface, they could be anything or more likely faked.

 

[Cobwebs]

I remember asking about this when I was in grammar school. How can a flag wave like that in the pictures if there isn't any wind on the moon. My teacher answered...you're not seeing the flag wave. What you see is the flag being propped up with rods to hold it open. And after looking closer it's very easy to see the creases and wrinkles in the flags as they're hang from those rods.

Yeah see when you question everything and accept every answer it's so easy to get a bum steer. What was schooling all about is another discussion.

No sign of a rocket thruster blowing the bejeezuz out of the ground below it is another giveaway that they were off with the fairies with this tale too. Just so many things that don't add up but because it's Nasa the mind trick works. It's been accepted as true because we can put the mechanics of it together in our mind with the understandings we think we have. Try convincing the whole planet with a story of some unheard of backyarder that's just returned from an encounter with aliens through the chomping of mushrooms and you'd be locked up. What if we have astral travel available without the need for antiquated rockets and computers. Sounds ratty, is that what they want? To keep us in the dark and fed on manure?
How do we get anywhere without challenging this crap?

 

[Peter Aawen]

:banghead:

Yeah, right...