Conspiracy Theory!

[Andy Murray]

Hi Folks,

most of you have probably come across this already but I hadn't.

Lunar Landings. (http://batesmotel.8m.com/)

They'll be telling us there's no Tooth Fairy next.

:D

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Ah, conspiracy theories to debunk. Fun.

First photo: apparently they hadn't developed anything as advanced as spotlights at this time. Actually unless Aldrin's shadow is the shorter one (he was substantially shorter than Armstrong) no lighting conditions really explain the shadow discrepancy, whether on the moon or on a stage.

Second photo, first point: it is likely that they used either spotlights or a camera with a flash in order to avoid the dark shadows mentioned.

Second photo, second point: the surface doesn't exactly blur into the distance, what you can see of it is crystal sharp, and the curvature is quite clear before it dissappears in shadows.

Second photo, third point: nope, can't see this structure. I can see a vague line which could be just about anything, I can also see the lunar lander, and a couple of machines, and another astronaut.

Third photo, first point: the reason such a sharp shadow is defined could be something to do with the lack of diffusion due to vacuum.

Third photo, second point: first they say that the sun is the only light source, then they complain that there are no stars. And as well as the sun you've got the Earth itself to contend with for lighting. How many stars do you see during the day?

Fourth photo, second point: the US flag is coloured, the lunar lander itself is plain. Actually this could well be a touchup, but since they've got the main flag in view I doubt it. Besides, the flag symbol doesn't exactly look illuminated, more in shadow to me.

Fifth photo, first point: if he was picking something up then perhaps he might've been kneeling, stooping, or even bending over.

Fifth photo, second point: a curved visor should carry reflections in parallel lines?

Fifth photo, third point: impressive that they can say that the sun isn't the light source just by looking at it. Personally I'd have to say there's not enough detail to tell.

Fifth photo, fourth point: the anomaly could be just about anything, why not call it a UFO while we're on the topic of conspiracy theories.

Sixth photo, first point: on the moon the lower gravity allows lines in dust to keep sharper definition.

Sixth photo, second point: could be anything, even post-photo editing for purposes, perhaps, of debunking the lunar landings.

Sixth photo, blowup: see above, can't explain it otherwise.

Fact one: insulated cameras do exist, as well as various different forms of film, the temperature in the shade is a little lower.

Fact two: http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/waw/mad/mad19.html

Fact three: and yet somehow we manage to put the shuttle up into space, and get it down, put up various space stations, satellites...

Fact four: look at a picture of the sky during the day, or one at night taken with flash.

Fact five: assuming the the moon is rock beneath the dust, and not soil, why would there be such a large crater?

[Spike]

The pictures are obviously forged. The pictures don`t show the little moon people who live there with Elvis and the Easter Bunny

[Andy Murray]

You have a point Spike. I did keep expecting to see Teletubbies or Clangers.

[Dragon_Princess]

lol:D

[wayofthedragon]

Hmmm....I didn't visit the site posted above because it's not loaded on the computer, however I know the discussion, because after reading your posts, I realize that it came on a television program talking about this. They made some valid arguments. But I could care less about rather this happened or not, it has nothing to do with me......does it:confused:

[morphus]

aaaarrrrrrrrrrrr............................The clangers.....i wonder what they do now they're not on TV:D

British childrens tele' ......best in the world!;)