http://www.angelfire.com/ut/aylett/eth69.html/

Any thoughts on these pics?

-- where's linkmeister (help@link.impaired), August 03, 2000

Answers

Hmmm... no stars, second light source... Can anybody say FLASH?

-- Lurking Lurking (Lurking@way.in.the.backgound.com), August 03, 2000.

If you believe they put a man on the moon....

-- (kb8um8@yahoo.com), August 03, 2000.

and if you believe there's nothing up his sleeve...

those photos surely make one wonder

things that make you go hmmmmmmm

-- cin (cin@cinn.cin), August 04, 2000.

The guy who made this web site is not too swift. Air molecules are not necessary in order for light to reflect off of objects. How the hell does he think we can see the moon when it's reflected light travels through the void of space? As for the "second light source," duuuuhhh, ever hear of a planet called Earth?

-- (no.need.to.fake@we.were.there), August 04, 2000.

I wasn't aware that the earth gave off light

I thought we got all of our light from the sun, moon, and stars

-- cin (cin@cinn.cin), August 04, 2000.

That just goes to show what an airhead you are cin.

Ever go camping when there is a nearly full moon at night, and everything is lit up almost as bright as day?

The same thing happens on the moon, but there is over 10 times as much light reflecting off of Earth. It's called "Earthshine". Duuuuuh!

-- (girls@are.brainless), August 04, 2000.

grow up

-- cin (cin@cinn.cin), August 04, 2000.

Neither the earth OR the moon give off light - they reflect the sun's light.

No stars - well, considering the amount of direct sunlight, it would certainly cause the starshine to fade to nothing.

We were there.

-- Deb M. (vmcclell@columbus.rr.com), August 04, 2000.

no stars is simple. like deb said, due to the brightness of the reflected sunlight, the camera's exposure time would have to be so short that no stars would be captured.

-- (no@conspiracy.here), August 04, 2000.

I for one think the guy brings up some interesting points, not all of which have been addressed here. Hmmmm....faked moon photos? Surely this is a farce website, but I will play (just for fun, until I get bored). My first responses, which may not be totally correct ;)

Photo 1: Why no crater from the lander blast? The 3000 lbs force (haven't verified this) is coming out of the nozzle, which is disappated beyond the nozzle, and not this force would be reduced by the time it heats the surface. Besides, you can lay a 3000 lb weight on the ground and it doesn't make a crater. You need a much larger force to make a crater (as in an explosion). I would expect dust blowoff and surface heating. As far as the "footprint," I can't see the photo clearly enough to comment, but I seem to remember the landers having a bit of bounce on landing.

Photo 2: Im not sure we can't see the camera in the photo, I just can't pick it out! Even if we can't see it in this photo doesn't mean there wasn't one. This is a silly one.

Photo 3: The reason you can't see the stars has been answered already in this thread. The reason you can see the flag so well may be because its backlit by the sun and its shining through the relatively thin fabric, or because the sunlight is shining down from the top left of the photo and the flag is leaning, or both.

Photo 4: Good one, not sure why the crosshair is behind the protruding part. I'm not familiar with the process that places these crosshairs in the first place. This is hardly proof we didn't go to the moon, lol. Someone else take this one.

Photo 5: Now this is silly too...assuming that the crosshairs are always horizontal, the camera could have been leaning and the photo cropped for orientation. The "horizon" could be a hill with a slope, you certainly can't assume the camera was held horizontally by the horizon.

Photo 6: Not sure of the point of including this photo, lol...

Photo 7: Shadow on the suit looks fine to me, reflected light, no diffusion needed...

Enough for me for now. I thought I saw a car off in the distance in one of the photo's...;)

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), August 11, 2000.

A clarification, the website author mentions 3000 lbs of pressure, not sure whether he is saying 3000 ft-lbs of force, or 3000 psi combustion chamber discharge pressure, etc, in either case don't expect a crater....

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), August 11, 2000.