At last my ability to use both the ctrl, C and V keys comes in handy!Quote:
Originally Posted by MacShreach
Printable View
At last my ability to use both the ctrl, C and V keys comes in handy!Quote:
Originally Posted by MacShreach
how ridiculous is this. No it wasn't fake!
Why do you even bother citing a site like Wikipedia anyway? Not all of wikipedia is fact and not all of it is reliable information. What you posted doesn't even have any info to back it up either. They've been to the moon plenty of times and not just Apollo 11. People have smacked golf balls up in it and now theres so much junk in space they're crashing into our satellites and spacecraft making it more difficult for space travel.
The people who think that the moon landing is a conspiracy, are the same people who think that the Holocaust wasn't real, and that white people hold down all other races...in other words IGNORANT PEOPLE. Oh well think what you want.
Good job, alpha2117.
BTW, Sucksalot, escape velocity from the lunar surface is approximately 5300 miles per hour. Tiger Woods couldn't even put a golf ball into orbit from the Moon. Still, I agree, there's a lot of debris up there in space, and apparently a bit in the spaces between your ears as well :)
Did I say it was?Quote:
Originally Posted by 2009AD
No shit the video exist. It could be a fake, it could be authentic. I was also was wondering was it's authenticity was already debunked.Quote:
Prove to you what's fake? The video? No the video exists. I can see it. Spongebob Squarepants videos also exist. I have no idea what I'm looking at or what your point is in posting it.
Did I implied that it was authentic?Quote:
Originally Posted by Oli
All I said was to explain it. That's it.
pls. note
pls. note
Total fucking bullshit, as any photographer will tell you.Quote:
Originally Posted by thx1138
Face shield is simply showing slight difference in local reflectivity-- no spotlight, bub.
There is no "ground hotspot" round the astronaut. This was taken with a wideangle lens on a modified Hasselblad SWC and these lenses show some light fall-off away from the central axis. It's not a hot-spot, it's a perfectly well understood optical effect.
There is no dark horizon. The tonal value of the ground 10 feet or so behinf the astronaut is the same as that at infinity. Your man has an eye problem--he's seeing things he wants to see.
Rock shadow IS parallel to astronaut's.
"Dark" side of astronaut is filled with reflected light from the ground, just as I would expect it to be.
Is it possible that you are a moron? Because if this BS is what you base your ideas on, I think you have a case to answer.
Now PLEASE
Trish, just to prove I'm fair, I have to say that while your overall conclusion is bang on the money, the second part of rebuttal point 2 is a tad flawed. I can explain that if you like. But not till tomorrow.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
M
Quote:
Trish, just to prove I'm fair, I have to say that while your overall conclusion is bang on the money, the second part of rebuttal point 2 is a tad flawed. I can explain that if you like. But not till tomorrow.
Please do. I知 always happy to learn from someone who knows what they池e talking about.
I also love trying to figure things out on my own. So let me make a quick guess at what you値l say. That way, if I知 wrong I値l be doubly embarrassed and I値l remember the lesson twice as well:
The intensity of light the eye receives from one reflecting surface diminishes with the square of the distance of the surface from the point of observation. However the number of such surfaces that fit into a given solid angle of observation increases with the square of that same distance. So the net luminosity remains fixed with distance.
In the photograph there is an illusion that this net luminosity my be diminishing with distance. But if you hold your hand over the bottom of the photo so that (as you say) only the ground ten feet behind the astronaut to the horizon is visible, it all appears to be evenly lit.