Fox TV Special - Did we land on the moon?

If this doesn't convince RE'ers it was fake, nothing will.

Nasa went to the moon / didn't go to the moon / Russians got there first / Hubble telescope doesn't exist or whatever
What difference does it make.
Sorry to burst your bubble but the Earth is Round.

...That C just looks like an imperfection in the film, especially as it's browner then the surrounding rock.

Astronaut's pube alert!

The C on the rock looks a lot like an eyelash that fell on film while it was copied.

It NASA was going to label a rock, why not put it in readable font, something like:

I've never seen an eyelash which took the shape of a letter in the English alphabet. Don't you think it's a funny coincidence that this anomaly of an eye lash just happens to be superimposed on a rock, on the moon, and shaped like the letter C. Why can't the eye lash be on the distant lunar landscape, over the astronaut, or over the rover?

Quote from: Trekky0623 on April 10, 2008, 08:06:11 PM

The C on the rock looks a lot like an eyelash that fell on film while it was copied.

It NASA was going to label a rock, why not put it in readable font, something like:

I've never seen an eyelash which took the shape of a letter in the English alphabet. Don't you think it's a funny coincidence that this anomaly of an eye lash just happens to be superimposed on a rock, on the moon, and shaped like the letter C. Why can't the eye lash be on the distant lunar landscape, over the astronaut, or over the rover?

So you're saying that NOTHING in the universe could possibly ever resemble a C, other than a C? And that somehow eyelashes don't land on parts of camera lenses that might be where rocks are?  And that they're somehow attracted to lunar landscapes...?

So you're saying that NOTHING in the universe could possibly ever resemble a C, other than a C? And that somehow eyelashes don't land on parts of camera lenses that might be where rocks are?  And that they're somehow attracted to lunar landscapes...?

Well eyelashes aren't shaped like C's for one. They're more like shallow arcs.



Are you honestly telling me that this is an eye lash? It's clearly not.

Sure, it could be a random anomaly of the film's negative which just happened to look exactly like the letter C and just happened to be superimposed over a rock in the foreground. But what are the chances of that happening? Not to mention, there's still the issue with NASA airbrushing the anomaly out of the raw print right after it was found.

Once again, it could have been done during the printing process and not the picture taking process. And once again, it could be anything, not just an eyelash. And once again, why would "C" be written on a rock?

Closeup:

That's a photographic anomaly*:  The resolved detail of the "C" is far grated than the resolved detail of the scene.    End of story.

* e.g. dust, hairs, scratches, containments...

And once again, why would "C" be written on a rock?

Exactly the question one should be asking.

Why would a c be written on a space rock?

Quote from: Kill-9 on April 11, 2008, 11:32:16 AM

And once again, why would "C" be written on a rock?

Exactly the question one should be asking.

Why would a c be written on a space rock?

Precisely. This goes to show that its an anomaly on the photo, rather than something written on the rock.

And lets not forget how former NASA astronaut James Irwin conveniently died of a heart attack right after contacting the media to schedule an interview to personally confess that the Apollo missions were a sham.

IT'S KIRA! :O

It's all a mix of illusions, coincidences, and the Fox TV conspiracy skewing the facts, isn't it?

I don't see how that is different from Flat Earth.

Oh yeah, no Fox TV conspiracies there.

On the very same picture there are also two different light sources.

http://www.apollo-hoax.me.uk/strangeshadows.html

And why is this topic in FE Debate? Whether we landed on moon or not has nothing to do with FE.

Also, the C has its own shadow.

Also, the C has its own shadow.

Or it's out of focus, indicating that its something on the development process...

DON'T USE FOX SPECIALS AS EVIDENCE. IT MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE A RETARD!

Quote

Tom.. thats cause he section of ground he is on is raised.. 

Suuuure it was.

It's no surprise that you can't understand that the earth is spherical. You can't even recognise a crest when you see it, the sun when you see it (ala the other thread), a work of fiction when you see it (your little book), and you certainly seem incapable of recognising your own hypocrisy.

So now you're saying photographs are okay as evidence, and especially edited photographs? Anyone could have edited out, or in, that little (inconclusive) slightly C-shaped inconsistency... just like that funny little photograph about star movements that you posted a couple of months ago that had been squished up in photoshop.

Maybe they just redeveloped the photo, wanted it free of mistakes so they could blow it up for posters, or just wanted it to be perfect. Any way you slice it, it's not evidence against the moon landing. If it highlights anything, it highlights your trollishness/insanity/willful ignorance.

And why is this topic in FE Debate? Whether we landed on moon or not has nothing to do with FE.

FEers say space travel isn't possible, so I guess if they think we lied about going to the moon, why not lie about all space travel in general, and even the shape of the Earth. But your right this has a little more to do with the moon landing than anything else.

.............11 days.

Does anyone know whether levee believes men went to the Moon?

I am guessing not, but it is worth asking as I find it interesting that he does not reject all space travel as evidenced by his presentation of photographs of the International Space Station only a few miles from the Sun.  He clearly does not believe the International Space Station is exclusively a mock-up set here on Earth (although he evidently does believe a clandestine mock-up set for the ISS does exist because he said the vehicle which was photographed in front of the Sun was unmanned and he stated that the videos of all space shuttle missions after the first two minutes are prerecorded tapes of modified 747's with identical crew quarters going in circles to create temporary weightlessness along with a studio where the "astronauts" hang in front of the cameras by obscured lines).

  As to the first point, I can vouch for this technique as having in my posession a 1965 photograph of Mike Collins suspended by a rope inside an airplane fuselage while the airplane flies in a parabola.  The same exact photograph was reissued by NASA to the press two years later with the rope and airplane insides all blacked out under the pretense that Collins was pioneering a spacewalk during a Gemini mission.  As to actors hanging by ropes, many people have been duped into believing phony photographs (such as with the UMMO UFO incident in Spain in 1967)of UFO's in the sky which professional photographic analysis subsequently proved to have been small models suspended a short distance from the camera.

Photos are not a reliable source of evidence in many cases. Older photographs are worth more consideration, especially before the 80s. This is also why looking out one's window is not a reliable source for determining many things, like the decay of the rainforest (even if you live in or near the rainforest), the distance you are from the sun, and the shape of the earth.