A single flash close to the camera will make your shots look like amateur snapshots. It will also blind the people in the photo, who may have to appear in 20+ photos.
Me too. No-FroPhoto (dot) com just does not work for me.
Yes, aluminum on the outside with Mylar and Kapton on the inside. And then Mylar in the space suits. So the "biologically ferocious emitter" (a phrase which according to google exists no other place on the entire internet aside from your comment) was emitting into the Mylar and Kapton which your article says is a better absorber of energy and lesser emitters of secondary neutrons than aluminum.. Just like on the ISS which goes through part of the Van Allen belt.
No, if true (as you say) it means these kind of measurements are worthless. The earth being not very far from the top of the image means it is heavily effected by this phenomenon, at the center it would be unaffected.
The thing to do would be to get the same or similar lens and recreate the scene.
"free energy" means different things to different people. There certainly may be forms of energy that man has yet to discover, or find a way to harness. Imagine showing someone a solar cell before they were widely known, it would seem like science fiction.
But there is a long history of "free energy" scams, perpetual motion devises etc. Lifehack's "free energy" devise had batteries in the globs of glue, and is of the scam variety.
But I think a new form of useable energy may be found.
A. I think you are ignoring the obvious. The shadow anomalies in terrestrial photos are the proof we need to finally show man has never been to the Earth.
B. One vertical rod can make a shadow that curves and goes in different directions if it is falling on ground or objects that is/are not flat. The astronauts were not standing in a parking lot, or in a flat field. The shadows will not converge, and there is no reason to think they will.
Which is it A or B?
I think the glow seen after the initial burn, the one seen only when looking into the engine from almost directly behind is not the propellant burning, but the glow of the metal of the interior rocket engine nozzle.
The distance between the moon and earth varies by 14%, but yes 3.67 is a good approximation. So if you had pics of the moon from earth taken with the same camera and lens, you could compare them.
Unless you are using BoyToy's scientific standard of "OH for fucks sake", which he derived while "halve way to the moon".
Imagine how much glue it would take to hide the batteries on a massive version of this devise.
There is however a well documented 1200 year history of perpetual motion machines not working, while being presented as working.
There are also scientific laws that say this is won't work, for which there has been extensive proof, and no history of ever being broken.
So if someone is skeptical, it might not just be them being a pessimist.
"According to Arizona State University, the Lunar Orbiter images were all digitally scanned at 400 dpi at the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston. "
LRO pictures are all digital to begin with. There is no reason to scan them, unless you have made additions with a crayon or something like in this video.
The google photos of your boat are from an airplane that is around 1600 feet up and uses a very expensive lens. Yes they also use satellite images, but not for close-up see your boat kind of stuff.
LRO photos are from a hundred miles up and use a very expensive lens. NASA's lens is probably better than Google's.
The problem is NASA's lens is not 330 times better, but Google is about 330 times closer.
"I can get a better look at the moon's..." No, you can't. The Hubble telescope can't.
Sam, it's hard to believe you don't have access the internet, and can't type "Joe Rogan" into Google. It would take way less effort than your response.
Joe is a celebrity who for a long time claimed that NASA did not land on the moon. He was very popular among the hoax folks, and even debated astronomer Phill Plait three times about the moon landing. He has recently changed his mind, and is not longer popular among the hoaxers.
Good for you.