PigPen,
:: edited for personal attacks! ::
Before we begin, let's repeat our new scientific mantra: The MOON IS NOT THE EARTH. Things that happen on Earth are not replicated on the Moon simply because the uneducated expect it to happen.
PigPen PigPen:
in a pole conducted here on the ship of 20 people only two think that the moon landing was real.
here are a few points
A rocket capable of landing on the Moon should have burned out a huge
crater on the surface, yet there is nothing there.
Should have? Right there we have some suspect science. If a lander is landing, it will slow it's descent first. It isn't like the blast-off of the rocket seen at Kennedy Space Centre. Moreover, rocket expulsion in a vacuum will billow outwards, on Earth the atmosphere will force the expulsion into columns. Consequently, expecting there to be a large blast crater also assumes there will be an atmosphere to force the expulsion in a column downwards. On the moon, without atmosphere, the expulsion bleeds every which way and is rather innocuous to the moon.
$1:
The next evidence also involves pictures. In all the pictures taken by the astronauts, the shadows are not black. Objects in shadow can be seen, sometimes fairly clearly, including a plaque on the side of the lander that can be read easily. If the Sun is the only source of light on the Moon, and there is no air to scatter that light, shadows should be utterly black.
And if we assume that the sun is the only source of light, you would be correct. However, the Earth acts as a giant mirror and so does the surface of the moon itself. Acting in concert, the lunar surface and the Earth reflect enough light to provide infill.
$1:
When the astronauts are assembling the American flag, the flag waves. Kaysing says this must have been from an errant breeze on the set. A flag wouldn't wave in a vacuum.
Believe it or not, my big fucking retarded bitch got this one correct.
$1:
The program makes a big deal out of how well the pictures taken from the Moon were exposed and set. Every picture we see is just right, with the scene always centered perfectly. However, the cameras were mounted on the front of the astronauts' spacesuit, and there was no finder. They couldn't have taken perfect pictures every time!
This one is just stupid. The NASA archives have literally thousands of photographs from the lunar missions. A lot of 'em suck. If you're going to document the greatest scientific achievment the Americans have mustered, would you only show the pictures that were the best possible? What's the point in releasing a blurry photograph of the back of Buzz Aldrin's head? They do exist, but they're archived.
If you still wish to believe in a conspiracy angle, then your logic must also dictate that the Globe and Mail is part of a conspiracy since every picture it shows of Katrina, or the Iraqi war is always in focus, well centred and cropped etc...
$1:
Crosshairs were etched in the astronauts' cameras to better help measure objects in the pictures. However, in several images, it looks like the objects are actually in front of the crosshairs, which is impossible if the crosshairs were inside the camera! Therefore, the images were faked
What PigPen is saying here is: I don't understand photography. If one examines which pictures there is a "disappearing" cross-hair, one would find a common trait. They all "disappear" against a bright white background. Does this mean something? Yup. It's just a limitation of the chemicals on the film itself. The white colour bleeds over the thin black crosshair. You can replicate this one yourself. Go tape a thin black hair to a gray piece of paper and take a picture of it in bright sunlight. Now switch the gray piece for a bright white piece. Examine the two pictures. Now, have some dork claim you faked the second photo.
$1:
When the movies of the astronauts walking and driving the lunar rover are doubled in speed, they look just like they were filmed on Earth and slowed down. This is clearly how the movies were faked
If you say so.
$1:
lack of stars in the pictures taken by the Apollo astronauts from the surface of the Moon. Without air, the sky is black, so where are the stars?
And another testament to not understanding photography. There are two main attributes to a lens when it takes a picture regarding how much light is allowed to strike the film. The aperature (the size of the opening) and the shutter-speed (how long it's open). If the aperature is open wide, more light is allowed in, ditto if there is a slow shutter speed. So, if somebody is taking a picture of something that is well-lit and bright, a smaller aperature and shutter-speed will allow for the picture to be in focus and not over-exposed. Something like an astronaut in a bright white suit on a reflective lunar surface.
Now, if one uses these settings to take a nice picture of the focal object, fainter sources of light simply do not have time to strike the film sufficiently to become exposed. That would be those far-off stars that don't appear in photographs.
Again, feel free to drive way out into the country and experiment with a camera and the stars in the sky.
$1:
It is said that the computing power used by the Apollo craft would have been less than that contained in a modern pocket calculator. One author, Bill Kaysing, who reputedly worked for NASA just before the time of the Apollo launches says that NASA commissioned a feasibility study to check the odds of completing the moon landings successfully. The odds were reported as being 0.0017% chance
Bill Kaysing? That's your damn source for this? Bill Kaysing did NOT work for NASA, he was a librarian/technical editor at RocketDyne and he quit in 1963 a FULL THREE YEARS before the majority of RocketDyne's work on the landers.
Bill Kaysing has been published in the World Weekly News and claims that the movie Capricorn One, filmed in 1978, was based on his book despite being released BEFORE he self-published his book. He also tried to sue astronaut Jim Lovell because Lovell called him "wacky". To Kaysing, that's libel, but calling Lovell a liar, a fraud and a government conspiracist is just "good journalism".
Anyway, don't let science get in the way of a good conspiracy theory there PigPen. I eagerly await your treatise on how the Loch Ness Monster shot Kennedy.
:: edited for personal attacks! ::
CKA Uber 
CKA Uber 
