what are you thinking about this apollo 17 shits source : h

>>8702792
what exactly am I looking at?

>>8702807
same backgrounds in one mission (apollo 17). how is it possible?

So what's happening here?
What's the meaning behind this?
Where's the quick rundown?
CAN YOU NOT TALK TO ME?!

>>8702792
Why is the source for your bottom pic lower quality than the one you posted?

>>8702792
In the off case you are not trolling, it's obviously not the same spot, idiot. Only the far background matches, which makes sense since it's miles away.

>>8702861

i dont know, high quality version : http://www.keithlaney.net/Ahiddenmission/a17pan1230624HR.jpg

>>8702864

almost the same angle in the two pictures.background details are the same in both pictures because of same angle.

>>8702792
In the bottom photo, the lander has to be far to the right of the camera somewhere. Those holes do not match up with the lander legs either. Also, the hills in the background are greatly shifted to one side in the bottom image. Meaning the bottom image is taken far to the left of the lander somewhere.

>>8702809

Those hills are dozens of kilometers away.
No atmosphere = no atmospheric haze, which your brain uses to determine how far something is from your point of view. Therefore they look close.

>>8702874
Also, the bottom image seems like the camera is higher in position than the upper image.

>>8702792

Here's an example of how hard it is to tell how far away shit is with no atmosphere context clues.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kcUwZ8rRjI

File: Untitled.png (581KB, 808x617px) Image search: [Google]

581KB, 808x617px

The arrows show just how different the placement of the camera is in each photo from each other. Since those hills are so far away, this is a great deal of distance between the two camera locations.

>>8702893

At first I thought of this. but please look this page ; http://www.aulis.com/exposing_apollo2.htm it is explaining angle problem

>>8702893
looks like its just zoomed in you faggot

File: Identification.jpg (2MB, 2560x3128px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x3128px

>>8702909
Only it isn't explaining it. Everything changed perspective in those images. This is what happens when people who do not have very good ability to discern two similar things from each other.

Nature has a way of killing those types of people off. Only now we've circumvented that mechanism. Now those people are able to easily gain food and reproduce with impunity. Then we end up with threads like this and blogs like what you posted.

>>8702923
Even in the 2 original images it shows the camera man to be in two wildly different locations and in both images you can see where the lander is. You can even see the dips in the ground near the lander in both images.

>>8702923
>zooming in lets me see around objects
What the fuck are you even doing on this board, faggot?

>>8702940
why are the mountain sizes the same in both photographs? if there is a mile difference between them

File: 1487707865741.png (195KB, 417x578px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 417x578px

>>8702952
Okay, now you are just trolling.

>>8702955

yes :) it is just joke. but im still thinking it is almost same angle photos. im preparing something. just wait

>>8702970
>im still thinking it is almost same angle photos

Because when you compare it to very far distant objects that is true. The photos are only taken like 200 meters from each other? That's nothing compared to the many kilometers the distant objects are.

File: 132.jpg (54KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 800x800px

>>8702909
>http://www.aulis.com/exposing_apollo2.htm
>he thinks they are moving the landing module and not the camera and says it is all faked because "you can't move the landing module" and can't into angles or the fact you can move a camera

File: reflect.jpg (242KB, 1150x1069px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 1150x1069px

>>8702929
>>8702979

it is bottom image. what is reflecting from astronaut?

source : https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20439HR.jpg

panorama : http://www.keithlaney.net/Ahiddenmission/a17pan1230624HR.jpg

>>8702792
So, OP, can you explain to me why the entire case for doubting the moon landings is made by obsessing over some photos? And obsessing over them in ways that could easily be resolved with just the slightest bit of mental effort put into them?

File: backpack2.jpg (290KB, 910x695px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 910x695px

>>8703054

i want solve this problems with you. example look this photo. where is the fucking astronaut backpack? why i cant see backpack.

source : https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo17/hires/as17-141-21608.jpg

>>8703073

Are you telling me you can't see the shadow of his backpack? He's facing the other astronaut and taking a picture you retard. Do you really think that if they were faking this shit they would have done such an extremely terrible job?

>>8703031

Looks like another astronaut, the one taking the picture. He isn't extremely large and far away, he's human-sized and standing on a little hill.

>>8703073
Probably on his back.

Anyway, the thing that bugs me the most with moon landing conspiracists is how little awareness of the larger scheme they have. So, here, let's take this example. What is the fucking point? That they literally managed to make these insanely convincing photos but forgot to put a backpack on this one guy? "Dude, you don't need to wear your backpack for the next scene, you'll only be visible on a reflection, and nobody will ever look this closely at these pictures we are faking right now!" That's just fucking ridiculous, as are by far most other arguments. It's just a fucking reflection on a convex surface, it's really noisy and blurry, no idea whether he has his backpack on or not.

>>8703082

i can see backpack in the shadow. but why i can't see in body. please explain me. i want learn.

>>8703094

they may have used miniature models for distant shots.there may be a lack in these models. such as backpack.

>>8703112
That makes absolutely no fucking sense.

>>8703096

Because his body is facing you and the backpack is behind him.

>>8703112

Or, OR, the photos were really taken by a guy on the Moon during a landing mission.

File: wheel.jpg (487KB, 2518x1110px) Image search: [Google]

487KB, 2518x1110px

>>8703122
>>8703139
>>8703143

and their cars are moving without a trace

source : https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo15/hires/as15-88-11901.jpg

File: 21472571819_509b5062db_k.jpg (99KB, 2048x2048px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 2048x2048px

>>8703148
one more for trace issue.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/598/21472571819_509b5062db_k.jpg

where is the wheel trace?

>>8703148

How do you think the lunar rover got onto the surface of the moon? It was stored folded up on the side of the LEM, then taken off and unfolded by an astronaut before being placed on the ground. On Earth it weighed 210 kg, but on the Moon it only weighed 35 kg, and could be easily lifted and unfolded by hand.

The point is, the rover didn't have to drive to get into the position it is sitting in in that photo. Maybe it got stuck out of frame and the astronauts carried it off to the side. You can see the tracks in the background from where they had just been driving.

Again I have to ask, do you really think that the people who supposedly faked these images were so inept that they fucking forgot to roll the rover around so it would show tracks in the photos?

>>8703174

In this one you can barely see the footprints left by the astronauts because the photo is being taken in very strong lighting and is very washed out. Look carefully next to the rover; you can just barely see the footprints they left as they disembarked the rover to take the pictures and surface samples. Considering the rover is facing the camera and thus came from the background, its tracks would be even harder to see than those footprints I mentioned.

>>8703176
>gain I have to ask, do you really

yes it can be for first photo. but please look second photo. it is away from module. it must be definitely driven from astronaut.

>>8703191

i can see astronaut footprints clearly. but where is the wheel traces? it is not strong light issue. because i can see clearly footprints.

>>8703176
>Again I have to ask, do you really think that the people who supposedly faked these images were so inept that they fucking forgot to roll the rover around so it would show tracks in the photos?
Not an argument.

>>8703174
>>8703148
>>8703073
>>8703031


You seem to like photos so here's some more.

These images were taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter in 2009. They clearly show the descent stage, science equipment, rovers, and tracks left by the Apollo astronauts on multiple missions over 50 years ago.

Deny these as fake all you want, but I guarantee if the Russians or ESA or China sent a Lunar orbital mapping probe to look for them, they'd find the exact same equipment and track patterns as can be seen here.

>>8703195

The tracks are behind the rover. The picture was taken from in front of the rover.

>>8703207

That wasn't my argument, it was a question. My explanation of the images in question stands.

>>8703214

thank you. it is great answer for this photo. im just searching great answer for my questions.

>>8702970
are you a slav? you speak english like a slav (terrible): no articles, barely any preposition, barely coherent.

File: same.jpg (81KB, 783x370px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 783x370px

>>8702792

another issue for mountain size. it is very interesting.

sources ;

1)https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo17/hires/as17-147-22527.jpg

2)https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo17/hires/as17-134-20435.jpg

>>8703255

Both are shot by astronaut. the first photo is taken from a lower height than second. but is it possible to pull it down enough to affect the size of the mountain so much?

>>8703255
>what is perspective and FOV

>>8703255
Learn how a camera works please.

>>8703255
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh5kZ4uIUC0

>>8703148
Hard to tell from the shadows, but from the looks of the foot prints around the rover, the rover could've been standing idle for a while, with the astronauts walking and kicking dust all over the place, covering up all the tire tracks.

File: multiple.jpg (546KB, 1837x2792px) Image search: [Google]

546KB, 1837x2792px

>>8702792

and attract the most attention. THE MISSING ROCK

sources;

1)https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-147-22494.jpg

2)https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo17/hires/as17-134-20435.jpg

3)https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-147-22488HR.jpg

File: rock.jpg (914KB, 1837x2792px) Image search: [Google]

914KB, 1837x2792px

>>8703380

File: multiple-review.jpg (298KB, 1837x1600px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 1837x1600px

>>8703397

yes, i found it now. thank you!

>>8703380
What >>8703397 says. It's the same shape, is on the edge of the crater visible in the first and 3rd pics, and is in the same position relative to the pair of rocks with the + on them in the 3rd pic that is also visible in the 1st.

>>8703380
I'm confused at what you're even trying to show here. If the Moon landings were actually a hoax, surely they'd be far more concrete and less ambiguous clues than fuzzy details in NASA photographs?

>>8703480

He was trying to say a certain rock was present in two photos then was nowhere to be found in the third, except It's actually in the third photo just shifted off to the right a little.

>>8703483
Yeah, but I meant bigger-picture. Apollo wasn't just a few spacecraft and some photos of rocks, it was a massive program that lasted many years, included many people, and involved co-ordination with and observation by many parties both inside and outside the USA.

Looking at pebbles and shadows is entirely the wrong approach to trying to "expose" it.

>>8703499

You're correct of course. I have no idea as per the OP's thought process but I can disprove his conjectures about the nature of the photographs we has posted.

Holy fuck there is some epic mouth breathing retard trolls ITT.

>>8703174
>>8703148
Tracks are right there in the images you posted. Literally right where your arrows are.

File: 1467270884052.gif (928KB, 264x320px) Image search: [Google]

928KB, 264x320px

>>8702792
>mfw all the moon landing hoaxers were right all along

>>8703558

have you even read any of the posts in this thread

i have never cared for this controversy at all. but all those official pictures look fake as fuck. everything looks feeble, and without any purpose but display, cosplay tier.

>>8703565
The explanations aren't particularly convincing.

So why would China cover the fake moon landing?

>>8703565
what difference does some anonymous comments make over photographic evidence of fraud ?

>>8702792
The astronauts left their bags shit on the moon. I mean no point taking that shit home.

File: 1460226367821.jpg (208KB, 700x833px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 700x833px

Look. If the moon landing was fake, I'm sure the Soviets would have said something about it.

>>8704105

They were part of it too because felt embarrassed america managed to dupe them into building impossible rocket that exploded 10 times.
>the capitalists lie you can't get to the moon we tried!
>CIA: *grins*

>>8702792
>what are you thinking about
>this apollo 17 shitsource
thinking shitsource is shit

>>8702929
interesting pic

>>8703208
>These images
what images?

Correcting Apollo sceptics is like fact-checking Trump: it's pointless cause they'll just say you're lying. By the logic of conspiracy theorists I can say Mt.Everst is a hill that is pictured in perspective to seem tall and you just fabricate all the evidence, cause i've never climbed it. Besides we do receive signals from the Apollo reflectors on the moon so these thread should just not exist on a "science" board where people are supposed to trust observation tools even when it's not their naked eye. But who am I fooling, it's pointless trying to make an argument around here

File: 584398main_M168353795RE_25cm_AP12_area.jpg (2MB, 2000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2000x1500px

>>8704380
These images.

File: 584395main_M168319885_LR.25cm_ap14_area.jpg (542KB, 1065x1065px) Image search: [Google]

542KB, 1065x1065px

>>8704422

File: 584392main_M168000580LR_ap17_area.jpg (1009KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

1009KB, 1600x1200px

>>8704424

File: me (2).jpg (17KB, 323x424px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 323x424px

>>8702792
>have some doubts about the moon landings
>see this thread to perhaps see definite proof
>it is created by an idiot and proves nothing
>tfw i'm from /x/

And then people wonder why /x/ is the kind of liquid garbage that leaks on to the ground through a hole in the bin which was eroded through the cheap material by a highly toxic bullshit.

It is clearly seen from the image that both of these pictures are made from different distances. If you would've gone at least a quarter of evolutionary process, you would dig deep into NASA's archives to figure out if there are images or videos that are claimed to be made from different locations during different missions and then see if there were any overlapping similarities.

>>8702792
>Those lander pits though....

Compare to the positions of the pads in the first pic, notice how they don't match, and then think about perspective and how the "pits" for the more distant pads would appear closer together, not further apart, when compared to the nearer pads.

Now look at the hill at "Y", and notice how much more of it has come into view in the second picture. The two pictures were not taken from the same place at all, the lower one is from a position much closer to the hills.

The footprints and rover tracks do not match up.

The only real similarities are the distant background is of the same hills, though from nearer the hills in the second image, and there is a small crater to the left in each image. Unless you want to argue that craters are uncommon on the moon, that last detail proves nothing and the others all indicate the pictures are from different locations.

>>8702880
That's pretty neat, saved for whacking conspiritards with in the future. Thank you for sharing.

>>8703031
The object just above the center of the visor is the other astronaut. The object at the lower edge is the device on the ground in front of him.

>>8703143
You know, that's just wild enough that it might be true!

>>8703148
I like how extremely cropped that picture is, to avoid showing the ground behind the rover where the tracks might show up.

>>8703096
Holy fuck, are you actually this dumb? Are you gonna make a point of not seeing the back of your head if you take a fucking selfie?
How do you even solve the fucking Captcha?

>>8703174
>>8703148
But what is that supposed to prove? On the moon or on a set on the Earth, rolling the lander to that position over the same dusty ground would have left the same tracks.

>>8703148
Wheel track from the right rear wheel is visible, faintly, trail from left to right is pretty clearly visible in background.

>>8703380
>>8703397
>>8703404

See:
>>8702876


>tfw you're having a good day and you're reminded that people still believe the moon landing was fake

>>8703282
The second photo has been cropped/enlarged -- check the size of the reticules. Somebody enlarged the second photo, so relative size of the rock is meaningless. Also, see the "House Rock" video linked by some anon above -- judging distance to objects outside of an atmosphere is tricky, rock may be much larger and further away than you assume.

>>8702893
obviously you're correct but good luck getting the internet losers here to believe it.

>>8704555
why would you even argue with them

>>8703148
Those are not boot tracks. those are wheel tracks, visually broken into two bits by the lump in front of them.

>>8704639
Two reasons -- it is fun, from time to tiem. Also, they are either ignorant, stupid or trolls -- If they are just ignorant, you can show them where they are wrong. If they are trolls or stupid, then maybe you can't win an argument with them becasue goalposts are infinitely shiftabe, but maybe you can help some third party reading the thread not to get caught up in their bullshit.

>>8704649
My experience with people who genuinly believe in hoax-stuff and flat-earth and what not is that they pride themself on "knowing the truth" and that nothing you say or do short of sending them up there to see for themself will work.
My favorites have been
>Rockets dont work in space cuz no atmo
>The radiation/muh Van Allen belts
>Kubrick, dude!!
>Earth is flat, "they" are lying, muh Freemasons and Hillary is a reptillian who had Armstrong killed

>>8702792
Background is actually really far away.
Unfortunately, there aren't any trees to show scales on the moon.

>>8704902

>>8703255
look this post. and scale with rock.both photos have same size same rocks but mountain size changing. please explain me

>>8705042
Same cause, same effect.
Rock is far away.

It troubles me that I could meet a person like OP IRL and would probably not be able to tell immediately that he's this stupid, without engaging him in some in depth conversation about something.
Like unless he's actually a basement dwelling neckbeard he can probably socialize and converse with people in a mostly normal way, and you'd never know he spends multiple hours posting grainy moon landing photos on 4chan and asking about tiny, inconsequential details in broken English.

This thread has made me legitimately paranoid that I may know and regularly interact with people like this and not realize it.

>>8705516
I learned that a while ago. Did you know, that you could have always been talking to people who regularly fuck their dog? Because you could be talking to people who regularly fuck their dog.

Most people have all kinds of secrets. Some you would really rather not know about. Like dog diddling. At least now you realize this.

>>8705539
>Because you could be talking to people who regularly fuck their dog.
I did not need or ask for this redpill.

>>8704283
>>CIA: *grins*
are you fucking 12 and from deviantart?

>>8705042
see >>8704588

>>8704283
N1failed 4 times.

>>8703031
Is that robo-puppy?

>>8702807
Insane paranoia

>combustion needs oxygen
>there is no oxygen in space
>rockets somehow magically disregard that and fly through it all the way to the moon, and back

It's all cold war propaganda, deal with it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cKpzp358F4

Don't know what OP is trying to prove with those pictures, but pretty good evidence for the moon landing is that the dust doesn't billow up into clouds when being disturbed. Pretty much impossible without a massive vacuum chamber.

>>8708040
thanks for pointing that out, pretty cool. Looks like those sand grain simulation toys.

>>8702792
where are the stars?

>>8708063
Hollywood, accidently giving the wrong people awards.

>>8707814
There was some oxygen in space during the flights. Unaccountably, it traveled along right with the rockets.

File: AS17-137-20981HR.jpg (1MB, 2340x2364px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2340x2364px

>>8703148
>>8703174

Of possible interest, was wandering through the Apollo 17 images on NASA's page, and noticed this one, which shows pretty directly how completely a couple of astronauts walking around and kicking dust and sand around can obliterate rover tracks. Would tend to support >>8703339's point.

File: AS17-137-20982HR.jpg (1MB, 2340x2364px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2340x2364px

>>8708211
Same area, slightly different angle.

File: 1456949098112.jpg (34KB, 474x313px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 474x313px

>>8702812
It's problematic that there is an astronaut there. Since the the feet of the lander stay on the moon after takeoff

>>8708301
But the "footpad" depressions do not match up with the positions of the pads in the picture above the one with the astronauts, nor are they in a square like the footpads were since the far pair are visibly further apart than the near pair, nor does anything else in the foreground of the picture astronaut picture match up with the lander picture other than "OMFG THERE ARE SOME SMALL CRATERS IN BOTH IMAGES!!!!"

Nor does the background natch up other than generally, which would be expected of two pictures looking the same direction in the same general area of the moon.

So what is the problem? The pictures were not taken from the same place, and that is what you would expect from two pictures take during a mission with three EVAs.

File: GPN-2000-001124rsz.jpg (2MB, 1900x1927px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1900x1927px

>>8703499
>Looking at pebbles and shadows is entirely the wrong approach to trying to "expose" it.

These people think they can find a single "smoking gun" truth and collapse the decades of lies with their expert analysis.

When we return to the moon, and we will, and we eventually locate these landing zones, watch these people still not be satisfied but instead claim that things were placed there in advance of a mission to the moon that would photograph old landing sites.

We may never be free of the moon landing conspiracy, ignorant retards will keep being retards.

File: hnnjhjvkkkv.png (2MB, 1072x1185px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1072x1185px

>>8702792
If you are not being purposefully retarded, you need to immediately castrate yourself with the dullest possible object.

File: 1484330899063.gif (3MB, 402x301px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 402x301px

>>8703255
Different lenses and focal ranges display relative sizes very differently. This is why photo's are horrible sources for size measurements.

>(PIC HEAVILY RELATED)

AT THE VERY LEAST, YOU HAVE TO ADMIT YOU ARE BEING BTFO ON EVERY PHOTO YOU POST.

because the moon landing is a lie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksSZPNQaFP8

>>8709237
Before your opinion will be considered you must post responses to all the evidence already posted in this thread proving you are a retard.

>>8709159
Brilliant. Thanks for sharing.

>>8709237
You think THAT'S something, have you seen THIS?????

>>8709399
"They" tried to delete my link but I will not be deterred.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vO4iNhaQms0