Mythbusters Moon Landing photo hoax 1

Debunking "Multiple light sources" myth.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• mythbusters
• moon
• landing
• hoax
• conspiracy

[ogith]

Moon-landing conspiracy theorists are among the lowest of the low.

Fourty years and running, without any evidence in their favor even once coming up, yet they still persist. Even soviet russia during its height, or Russia after the fall, didn't even once contend the americans success. Despite decades of evidence to the contrary, the old generations are set in their baseless beliefs and a new generation of denialists pops up to join them.

Absurd and pathetic in every meaning of the words.

[captainumbnuts3]

and you numbnuts think out of hundreds of thousands of NASA workers involved with the moon landings nobody would have whistle blown ?

[knowledgemonger]

@captainumbnuts3 You can also mention the cornercubes. They are used nearly every day even today to range the distance to the moon. They were first used right after they were put in place. That means that we get new proof that Apollo was real for each time the experiment is done.

[captainumbnuts3]

@horseofblack

I watched the film, and here are the results of the japanese moon probe referred to at the end:

Japanese SELENE (Kaguya) Lunar Mission Spots Apollo 15 Landing Site (Images)

universetodaydotcom/15579/japa­nese-selene-kaguya-lunar-missi­on-spots-apollo-15-landing-sit­e-images/

and also these from the LRO:

nasadotgov/mission_pages/apoll­o/revisited/index.html

romove the dot and replace with a .

[captainumbnuts3]

@horseofblack

1. no stars- 1960's film had a low dynamic range, that is the ability to record the difference between light & dark. When you expose film (and digital) unless you can flash or ambient light an entire scene, you have to choose what aspect of the scene you are going to record. The astronauts metered for the moons light therefore only the highlights were recorded leaving dark scenes in the picture. The moon was bright the stars were not, the were not recorded.

[captainumbnuts3]

@captainumbnuts3

I did note a small edit in one of the official NASA films produced at the time of the Apollo 11 landings (I have watched 100's of hours of the NASA film stock of all space missions) they edited out the '30 seconds' fuel warning in the official fim 'the flight of Apollo 11' that's presumably because the didnt want it to look so close to an abort situation at the time. The only other anomolies are the ongoing fading of Herr Von Braun & his chums from NASA history

[captainumbnuts3]

@horseofblack

there is no atmosphere in space or on the moon, it is much easier to fly where there is no moving air currents & low gravity. Yes the LM flies straight up in no atmosphere & low gravity conditions, that was what it was designed to do! The astronauts did not fly the LM straight down, if you watch the full film of the Apollo 11 landing you will see armstrong zig zagging and undulating the LM up & down until he found a suitable landing site.

[horseofblack]

@captainumbnuts3 the "practice rig" was constructed with similar principles of propulsion and guidance. so how did the lm pilots get so proficient at flying this fat little lunar module. look at the videos of the landings and take offs. they were absolutely stable, no wobble. every schoolboy knows that a pilot in a new vehicle has to fly many hours to get good at it.

[horseofblack]

@loperspest yes your comments support my premise that no one flew the lm or similar vehicle to become proficient enough to pilot the thing straight down on landing and straight up on take off. watch the nasa videos,  neither during the landing nor the flight of the return vehicle fly do you see any wobble. but on earth in the lm simulator the flight is quickly become totally our of control.

[horseofblack]

@loperspest please do post sources.