Redpill me on the moon landing Is it true that the photos were

No.

https://petapixel.com/2014/07/29/a-detailed-look-at-the-camera-tech-behind-the-historical-apollo-11-moon-landing/

They were based around "normie" cameras but custom re-designed for moon missions, including aids to help the astronauts with their bulky gloves. The astronauts still had to determine range, aperature and shutter speed.

Since taking photos was an essential part of their mission, they had in depth training in how to take good photos.

At least one of the cameras they kept on the orbiter was basically a "normie" camera, but it was used for taking pictures of each other, etc. while in transit, not on the moon. The famous "blue marble" was taken with one of these "normie" cameras.

>>18646924
>The astronauts still had to determine range, aperature and shutter speed.

How did they adjust those camera setting with huge thick gloves on? Also, I believe the cameras were fixed to the front of their suits (I could be wrong), making it very difficult for them to even see what the setting were considering the limited field of view due their visors.

>they had in depth training in how to take good photos

A few classes on photography do not make you a good photographer. The lighting conditions on the moon are drastically different than anything on Earth. Getting a serviceable properly exposed picture in those conditions would be a challenge even for an experienced photographer. I don't see much evidence in the lunar photo library of exposure bracketing (multiple photos of the same shot with different exposure settings) to ensure a good exposure on at least one of the pics, you would think they would have done this for the staged photo opp pics at the very least.

>>18646924

check out the faux reportage, french documentary for a different view

File: moon_and_earth_lroearthrise_frame_0.jpg (373KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

373KB, 1920x1080px

does this look real to you?

>>18647190
>Perfect exposure of the moon's surface while it is being lit by the sun
>Perfect exposure of Earth in the sky

This is clearly a composite of 2 pics. I really don't think you could snap a pic and get both the Earth and the sun-blasted reflective lunar surface both properly exposed like that.

>>18647217
https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/goddard/lro-earthrise-2015

well it's an official nasa picture.

>>18647190
yes

>>18646924
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ra2rVTuiov4 This will give you all the proof you need

>>18647174
>A few classes on photography do not make you a good photographer.
Photography is not difficult, it's not brain surgery or.... rocket.... science....

>>18647217
Moon is shit at reflecting light.

>>18647228
That makes it extra sketchy. The Earth in that photo looks like a high detail painting. The fact that NASA feels comfortable insisting this obviously shopped photo is real casts doubt on everything they put out.

>>18647174
>how did they adjust the settings

With the extra large buttons and switches. They knew they'd have to take pictures, and they knew they'd be wearing big thick gloves, so they designed them accordingly. The astronauts had cameras in their suits and ones that they carried around.

>lighting conditions on the moon are drastically different

Not that different, no.

>exposure bracketing

No, they used exposure bracketing. Given you think it was staged, I'm going to have to assume you didn't do your research very well.

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

>>18647266
No, anon, the moon is quite bright. Bright enough you can see at night on earth by it.

>>18647276
They probably feel comfortable because they know it's a real photo, and any claims otherwise are just kooks grasping at straws.

>>18647286
>No, they used exposure bracketing
I recall looking through the NASA archive which shows every pic they took in order (numbered and sorted by film reel) and it showed no evidence of exposure bracketing at all.

>>18647300
You sound like a credible person who should be believed.

>>18647300
Oh look, ten seconds on google.

https://www.quora.com/How-did-NASA-know-what-camera-film-settings-aperture-ISO-shutter-speed-etc-to-use-to-get-great-pictures-on-their-first-Moon-landing

>>18647286
>Bright enough you can see at night on earth by it.
You're arguing that it's so bright you can only see it reflecting light when it's dark which is retarded. Think about a dim bulb: in the day you may not be able to tell if it's on or not because everything is bright, but in the night time in the dark you can easily see if it's on or not.

Apart from that look up albedo. The Earth has an albedo of about 3 times or so that of the moon, which means it reflects 3 times the amount of light. Moon's albido is like .1 which is shit, similar to dark wet soil.

>>18647190

>totally not CG with standard moon surface texture

How does anyone think this isn't a 3D model? The earth is waaay too sharp and perfect, this is utterly stupid.

>>18647329
>way too sharp and perfect

Why wouldn't it be?

>>18647332
It seems odd both the earth and the moon are both in focus and both expertly exposed. Also the moon looks like it's from a grey scale photo source, possibly tinted a bit, and clearly the earth is color source.

>>18647329
It is a 3D model. That's taken from simulation software. NASA never claimed it was a photo.

It's also a different picture from the one here.

>>18647228
And NASA clearly describes that one as being a composite of several different photos.

>>18647347
so NASA creates fake pictures of the moon and earth... you've proven my point

>>18647347
>And NASA clearly describes that one as being a composite of several different photos.
so all these shills automatically defending NASA and saying it's a real genuine photo are literally NASA cucks top kek

>>18647332
>Why wouldn't it be?
Earth is not a perfect sphere, it is actually more pear shaped.
Something NASA never bother to take into consideration when making there publicity CGI.

>>18647380
>it is more pear shaped

No it isn't. It's far more spherical than it is pear shaped. It's so close to being a perfect sphere, you wouldn't be able to tell that it's that it's not from a photo.

>>18647367
And you've proven mine, that you're a hoaxer.

do any of these images look real to you??

https://www.google.ca/search?q=earth+from+moon&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj32eKH-prSAhVnwYMKHbFQAnkQ_AUICCgB&biw=1920&bih=950

>>18647390
Quite a few, yes.

File: 1484964050678.jpg (140KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 800x800px

>>18647394
nasa shill confirmed

>>18646924
actually it doesn't matter because Armstrong couldn't see any star during the whole mission with his naked eyes.
So basically it wasn't a camera issue, real issue was they were doing it in a studio.

>>18647505
Yup. Also there's another video on the ISS where an astronaut slips and says they're taping in USA.

There is an awkward silence after.

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

>>18647190
>>18646924
>>18646966

Even some hasselblad camera devs don't believe in any of the photos they took on the moon lol

File: ISS-scubatank.webm (501KB, 720x576px) Image search: [Google]

501KB, 720x576px

>>18647534
nice fail xDxD
But nothing beats the scuba tank in space IMO, it comes with super cool bubbles xD

>>18647380
Pear shaped? The earth is an oblate spheroid. This is due to centifigul force making the planet 'bulge around the equator, but you would never be able to tell by looking at the earth as a whole. Hell, to scale the earth is smoother than a pool ball.

>>18646924

biggest redpill. there is no moon.

>he hasn't swallowed the ultimate redpill
>he still believes we live on a spinning ball

Lmao'ing at you to be honest family.

>>18647230
Please don't breed

The answer is yes we did land on the moon but they made fake pictures for the public to hide what is really up there.

Planets aren't really planets...they are the Fallen Angels.

The stars are the host of Heaven.

NASA has a master named Lucifer who does not want you to know about the Father Yahweh.

>>18647534
>they're talking to a school on the west coast
>he mentions he grew up in a little town in Maine
>he points out that's across the US from where they're talking with
>tinfoil haters think they've uncovered a massive conspiracy.

>>18647584
that's an astronaut's arm. Same material, same metal band.

>>18647584
>Bubbles
Nope. You can clearly see something moving left to right at 7 seconds. Then two objects move bottom to top in different directions. Bubbles travel up, not sideways sometimes.

>>18647797
Astronauts Arm is an okay name for a metal band.

File: bowie.png (256KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 500x500px

>>18647948

File: 1483908499563.jpg (91KB, 539x960px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 539x960px

>>18647797
Nope it's definitely a scuba tank
>>18647863
>You can clearly see something moving left to right at 7 seconds.
Yes a bubble
>Then two objects move bottom to top in different directions
yes two more bubbles running in a different direction because there is water current in their giant pool. Water is constantly cleaned through filters.

>>18647792
nobody can land on the Moon because nobody can go past the first 70 miles
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXNmj-JmrR8

We live in an enclosed system, a fish bowl.

File: FE -sunset perspective-lensing.webm (1MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 320x240px

>>18647728
There is a Moon but there is also a dome (like a molten looking glass) in between her and us
and Earth is flat

File: 203554-night-sky-milky-way-galaxy-wallpaper_31.jpg (1MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3840x2160px

>>18647190
Our firmament is so much more beautiful in real life.

>>18647797
No he actually says
>across the united state from where we are talking to you right now.

>>18647190

This photo makes zero sense

The Moon is taken with an IR camera set to white=hot, but then the Earth is is the visible spectrum.

Like wtf was NASA thinking when they released this photo?

>>18647190
I'm more concern about the moon surface itself.
The moon surface should be not that uneven. It should be full flat horizon just like on Earth.

Unless:
1. The moon is ultra small
2. There's super huge mountains nearby that traverse across that moon's surface.
Seriously though, it looks like they were on the edge of the cliff.

Prove me wrong, /x/.

>>18648684
>there is water current in their giant pool
The first "bubble" moves at 90 degrees to the other two. A current that can drag a bubble perfectly sideways would overwhelm a diver. There is no evidence of that. The point of neutral buoyancy is to feel weightless, that doesn't work if there's a massive fucking current.

>>18647375
Literally no one said it was genuine, retard.

>>18649031
NASA was thinking it was a composite and obviously so. And no, the Moon image is not infrared.

File: 297755main_GPN-2001-000009_full.jpg (41KB, 1041x833px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 1041x833px

>>18647190
>>18647228
the original photo is far less detailed.. there was obviously some heavy editing involved with the image in question.

>>18649173
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dE-vOscpiNc&ab_channel=NASAGoddard

File: smoothearthhorizon.jpg (40KB, 590x350px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 590x350px

>>18649173
>it should be a full flat horizon
>just like on earth

>>18647190
it doesnt and nobody claims otherwise. probably a screenshot from space engine

>>18649173
>The moon surface should be not that uneven
what? why?