were these even taken on the moon? this shot looks done in a

>absolutely zero light scatter indicating this was most likely in a massive vacuum

No, the Earth is flat.

>we lost all tapes and negatives of the moon landing

Sure the burgers landed on the moon.

File: HET_Dome.jpg (583KB, 1920x1277px) Image search: [Google]

583KB, 1920x1277px

What if this holds the most expansive graphic generator of all time?

bump for truth.

>>3101537
The light looks artificial because you're used to seeing sunlight get filtered through lots of atmosphere at lower angles.

>americans truly believe that an art class experiment of aluminium foil and pvc tubes went to the moon AND came back from it

>>3101928
>mylar
>steel
>aluminum
>he doesn't understand that you'd make a spacecraft out of the lightest material possible so you need to generate the minimum amount of thrust and therefore carry less fuel

File: shadow.jpg (130KB, 783x581px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 783x581px

why would two people cast very different sized shadows despite being 2 meters apart?

isnt that strange? why would that happen? anyone who has worked with strobes knows and has seen this before. and anyone who has went out knows sunlight renders proportionally sized shadows for nearby objects.

>>3101550
>no negatives
>no tapes
[citation needed]

File: ap11_lm_as11_40_5927.jpg (856KB, 2349x2362px) Image search: [Google]

856KB, 2349x2362px

>>3101936
my friend, take a good look at this. go, look at it, take your time.

do you honestly believe this vehicle is suitable for space travel? do you believe this vehicle landed the moon and then went back to earth?

i have seen better patchwork from blind ladies in the charity house, but maybe you have a sound argument to explain why would scotch tape be used to insulate a spacecraft.

>>3101940
I was gonna say - i'm fairly sure they have plenty of the original negs, film and sound recordings from the landings.
Hence that big ass 120 scan. I think they went carrying Hassies.

File: jason_harding_dorling_kindersly_dk_space_saturn_v_rocket_apollo_spacecraft_man_on_the_moon_3d_render_visual_illustration1.jpg (861KB, 1800x1070px) Image search: [Google]

861KB, 1800x1070px

>>3101952
no, buddy, pal, I believe that that vehicle was sufficient to detach from the Command/Service Module and ferry the crew down to the lunar surface, and then launch them back into orbit. I see enough structure to keep its integrity and enough protection for the crew to survive landing and take-off. The moon has no atmosphere and low gravity, so a craft like that would need very little protection against what might be outside of it - just some panels to deflect micrometeoroids - and wouldn't need to stand up to any external pressures. Proper use of the thrusters would cushion the shock of landing and reattachment with the Command Module.

Think like an engineer tasked with getting to the moon as cheaply and safely as possible using 1960s technology. Don't think like a scifi starship designer. Think of a craft designed for one purpose only, not to handle all space travel situations.

>>3101952
Lunar module was only used for landing on the moon and getting back into moon orbit, not for making the actual journey, doofus.

>>3101964
>>3101972
>they actually think the alufoil art project could land on the moon and then propel itself back into orbit AND dock with some rocket that was left orbiting the "moon"
they couldnt even be able to do that here on earth NOW, let alone in 1969. dont be ridiculous.

too much ameripatriotism in here, cant discuss the issue objectively.

>>3101987
>I don't read books and things, I just watch youtube videos

>>3101987
>they couldnt even be able to do that here on earth NOW

what is the ISS? What was MIR? What was Skylab?

Even if you discount the moon landings, they've been doing that shit for ages. Time to move on from the 1930ies, grandpa.

Wouldn't the film get destroyed from space radiation?

>>3102003
They used 70mm hasselblad magazines. Those were made of metal. Not sure if that would be enough to protect the film though.

File: Soyuz_spacecraft_docked_to_Station.jpg (1MB, 4288x2929px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4288x2929px

>>3101999
Yeah, this is what Soyuz looks like: a few blobs with some fabric thrown over them. It's the most successful and efficient manned spacecraft design in history, because it's designed to do one job cheaply and it does it well. But it doesn't look like much.

It's not at all a huge leap in capabilities from what we regularly do in orbit to what we did on the moon.

>>3102013
Easy to put unexposed/exposed film in a shielded container, either way.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D2Xs
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS4 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	886
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	42 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4288
Image Height	2929
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2009:08:07 15:32:24
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	28.00 mm
Comment	NASA 1121 83.7F
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4288
Image Height	2929
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Soft
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3102013
yup, in fact shooting a hassie in space is basically ideal photo conditions. Really cold, really dark, no dust, no mould.

File: as4amulcz0b6a2inudjy.jpg (32KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 800x450px

Moon Hassy, painted silver to reflect heat.

>The cameras did not have any light metering or automatic exposure. Based on experimentation on earlier Apollo missions, exposure settings for the different kinds of expected lighting conditions were worked out in advance. The guidelines were printed for the astronauts on the top of the Hasselblad film magazines (shown below). The shutter speed was set to 1/250, and the f-stop recommendations were ƒ/5.6 for objects in shadow and ƒ/11 for objects in the sun. For some of the more important photographs, the astronauts utilized exposure bracketing, varying the exposures one stop up and/or down from the recommended setting, to ensure a good result.

>Bean – “The first ones (we took in training) weren’t very good. But on the Moon, they were all good. So we really had learned in training how to do it by using real film, having it developed, having it debriefed. I think that’s why the photography got better with each mission, in general. Because the photographers would impart the (experience gained on a mission) to the next crew and help them be better. So they did get better. And I thought the photography did too.”

https://sterileeye.com/2009/07/23/the-apollo-11-hasselblad-cameras/

>>3101952
OMG IT LOOKS DUMB SO IT MUST BE DUMB LOOK MOM I FOUND MASSIVE EVIDENCE IT LOOKS DUMB

fucken retard

>>3101537
>were these even taken on the moon?
Yes, they were.

>>3101953
>I think they went carrying Hassies.
They pretty much developed the Hasselblad 500s for the moon landings.

>>3101987
>they couldnt even be able to do that here on earth NOW,
Well yeah, because Earth has 8 times the gravity of the moon + an atmosphere.

The real question is; how ass blasted were the fagmunists when they learned and witnessed the amerifats land on the moon?

>>3101938
They're on a fucking hill

File: 1433274175809.gif (119KB, 518x345px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 518x345px

if the moon landing was real then how were these pictures taken when there isnt any air on the moon for the light particles to travel through to go into the lens of the camera?

checkmate atheists

>>3102182
the astronauts brought air with them, idiot

>>3102071
You can't be stupid enough to believe the marketing.

File: FB_IMG_1495026434496.jpg (81KB, 630x907px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 630x907px

>>3101537
Really makes you think

>>3102216
In Coca Cola cans

>>3102439
That's Buzz Aldrin's footprint, and astronauts wore outer boots on the lunar surface.

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-first-step-on-the-moon-not-match-the-Neil-Armstrongs-suit-boots

C'mon, this stuff takes two seconds to google.

>>3102471
of course they have damage control for every questioning in the last 50 years, they even have useful udiots like yourself defending them, cool huh.

>>3102613
>asks dumb question with simple explanation
>gets simple answer

"A likely story coming from a SHILL! Fake news!"

>>3101537
>pics or it didn't happen
>PICS
>no they're fake I'm going to question the logic of every picture

>>3102772
>believing right away ANYTHING emanated from the US goverment in the cold war era
guys you are ridiculous.

>>3102110
they were so mad they came up with a 50 year plan to put trump into office.

>>3102182
Well with your illogical logic, it takes air for light to function properly. What you fail to realize is light is everywhere in space, but is not visible till it hits an object. In this case the moon, and anything on it. It is also why we see other planets from reflected light. But you apparently do not science much. Or am I mistaken, and please let me know what you have a degree in, besides Youtube U.

>>3102794
>still believes the russian connection

How retarded are you? Even CNN had to pull their stories about Trump and Russia because there was too little evidence for even them

>>3102812
it's a joke bro.

>>3102812
[citation needed]

>>3102793
>being a /x/-tier conspiracy retard

9/11 was an inside job really you guise wake up sheeple jill stein 2016

>>3102182
Photons and electrons don't exist.

File: 21710343741_72843d8794_z.jpg (95KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 640x640px

https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums

You really believe that all of those photos are fake? Come on...

>>3103085
now this i can get behind

Point one: The soviets would have loved to have debunked the moon landing and you can bet your bottom buck that they were listening to every transmission and would have know if they were not coming from the moon. Unless they are in on it as well and the whole Cold War was a hoax.

Point two: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw

File: man-on-the-moon.jpg (1MB, 1789x1125px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1789x1125px

>>3102071
>>3102287

The 500 EL with an electrically driven mechanism was developed specifically at NASA's request, as an astronaut wearing their EVA suit couldn't wind a camera manually with the cumbersome gloves.

They didn't design the 500 series specifically for NASA, but their modified cameras ended up producing some of the most recognisable images in human history, so it kind of put them on the map.

>>3103084
>same distance from earth
>earth appears smaller than the moon seeing from earth

>>3103141
this is autism of the utmost severity

>>3103146
>implying I'm wrong

>>3103141
I don't know what photo you're looking at, but to me the Earth looks larger there, especially relative to the size of the lander, than the moon has ever looked to me from Earth.

A subjective judgement is probably the worst way to try to prove a conspiracy theory.

>>3101938
Because one is crouching, it looks like. Could also be a height difference.

Really makes my noggin' go a moon landin'.

>>3103166
>flexing the knees a tiny bit is crouching
NO
>Could also be a height difference.
>Neil Armstrong 1,8m
>Buzz Aldrin 1,78m

negligible difference. try again, fake news.

>>3101938
The moon is much smaller than the earth, so a slight difference in position could be a large difference in shadow height.

learn2geography

>>3103141
r u dumb?

>>3103191
>so a slight difference in position could be a large difference in shadow height.

Are you fucking serious? Shadow has nothing to do with the size of the moon, only with the angle of the source of the light (sun)

>>3103098
>Point one: The soviets would have loved to have debunked the moon landing and you can bet your bottom buck that they were listening to every transmission and would have know if they were not coming from the moon. Unless they are in on it as well and the whole Cold War was a hoax.

duh. really simple. we sent an unmanned transmitter to the moon and relayed the faked radio transmissions.

>>3103369
See, here's what I don't understand. If you know anything about the US space program, you know we've sent unmanned probes to a number of different planets and moons and had them land safely. We've been sending humans into space and getting them back safely since 1961. We've put up two separate space stations and left astronauts up there on extended missions.
We ran a reusable spaceplane program for 30 years.

Why is that leap to the idea a manned moon landing and takeoff such a problem? It's all the same principles at work. It's all just rockets and physics and math.

Do people think we've never sent humans into space? Do they think we never had a working space station? Do they think the US in the 1960s wouldn't have had the economic resources to pull it off successfully?

>>3103385
that's exactly what they think. I even heard people claiming that the ISS doesn't really exist and it's just a hologram or balloon in the sky. Same goes for planets

>>3103410
fuck you aliens do exists havent you ever seen men in black? that was the director sending a message to the worrld and preparing them for terrestrials he is an alien too

Nice job Kubrick