Here is your chance.

yes indeed it does. it is where sunlight reflects of the surface and back up. this is also why when in shadows they can still be seen and not in total blackens like the conspiracy nuts claim.

Quote from: Saddam Hussein on February 16, 2013, 11:03:25 AM

Where is this headed?  We don't have to poke holes in literally every single picture to prove that there's a conspiracy.

Actually, that's exactly what you have to do.

You have it backwards. One must only find a single irrecoverable flaw. For example, a while back a faulty measurement found neutrinos to move faster than lightspeed. Had that finding been corroborated, despite the fact that it was a single error against mountains of proof, it would have completely disproven Einstein. A theory must work universally.

To put it another way, let's look at the burden of proof. First it falls upon NASA and requires them to demonstrate that they have landed on the moon. This being fulfilled, it falls upon those claiming that NASA's proof was falsified. That's where we come into the picture. Having demonstrated that some of NASA's evidence appears to have been falsified, the burden of proof no longer is upon us. We don't have to continue proving it ad infinitum, and couldn't. Some of their fakes will be near perfect. Instead, the burden of proof now falls upon those claiming us to be wrong. That's where you come in. So go ahead, prove us wrong.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on February 16, 2013, 11:07:28 AM

Quote from: Saddam Hussein on February 16, 2013, 11:03:25 AM

Where is this headed?  We don't have to poke holes in literally every single picture to prove that there's a conspiracy.

Actually, that's exactly what you have to do.

You have it backwards. One must only find a single irrecoverable flaw. For example, a while back a faulty measurement found neutrinos to move faster than lightspeed. Had that finding been corroborated, despite the fact that it was a single error against mountains of proof, it would have completely disproven Einstein. A theory must work universally.

To put it another way, let's look at the burden of proof. First it falls upon NASA and requires them to demonstrate that they have landed on the moon. This being fulfilled, it falls upon those claiming that NASA's proof was falsified. That's where we come into the picture. Having demonstrated that some of NASA's evidence appears to have been falsified, the burden of proof no longer is upon us. We don't have to continue proving it ad infinitum, and couldn't. Some of their fakes will be near perfect. Instead, the burden of proof now falls upon those claiming us to be wrong. That's where you come in. So go ahead, prove us wrong.

Isn't all proof against the moon landing confined to Apollo 11?  What about the other missions to the moon?  Three other Apollo missions, 4 Luna Missions the surveyor missions. All these must be refuted as well.

As a side note, to say that an accurate measurement of a neutrino traveling FTL would "disprove Einstein" is a bit dramatic. It -may- show flaws in -some- of Einstein's work but remember, he did not even win his Nobel Proze for his work on relativistic models. His contributions to physics are substantial.

Quote from: Tausami on February 17, 2013, 10:18:24 AM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on February 16, 2013, 11:07:28 AM

Quote from: Saddam Hussein on February 16, 2013, 11:03:25 AM

Where is this headed?  We don't have to poke holes in literally every single picture to prove that there's a conspiracy.

Actually, that's exactly what you have to do.

You have it backwards. One must only find a single irrecoverable flaw. For example, a while back a faulty measurement found neutrinos to move faster than lightspeed. Had that finding been corroborated, despite the fact that it was a single error against mountains of proof, it would have completely disproven Einstein. A theory must work universally.

To put it another way, let's look at the burden of proof. First it falls upon NASA and requires them to demonstrate that they have landed on the moon. This being fulfilled, it falls upon those claiming that NASA's proof was falsified. That's where we come into the picture. Having demonstrated that some of NASA's evidence appears to have been falsified, the burden of proof no longer is upon us. We don't have to continue proving it ad infinitum, and couldn't. Some of their fakes will be near perfect. Instead, the burden of proof now falls upon those claiming us to be wrong. That's where you come in. So go ahead, prove us wrong.

Isn't all proof against the moon landing confined to Apollo 11?  What about the other missions to the moon?  Three other Apollo missions, 4 Luna Missions the surveyor missions. All these must be refuted as well.

As a side note, to say that an accurate measurement of a neutrino traveling FTL would "disprove Einstein" is a bit dramatic. It -may- show flaws in -some- of Einstein's work but remember, he did not even win his Nobel Proze for his work on relativistic models. His contributions to physics are substantial.

Oh, you know what I mean. It wouldn't disprove Einstein's contributions to Atomic Theory, for instance. That would be silly. I'm referring to relativity, as it rather relies on the cosmic speed limit. I didn't feel the need to clarify that, as it seemed rather obvious.


Anyway, Apollo 11 is the most well documented moon landing, and also when NASA was least experienced at faking them. Therefore, we're more likely to find issues. And let's be honest here. If they faked one mission, why would they not have faked the others?

but everything you find wrong with it can be easily explained mostly by the claimer not knowing what they are talking about. e.g why are  their not any stars in the pictures.
this is easily explainable by the fact that their should not be any because of the exposure settings.

Thaggy:
You say that N.A.S.A stitched various images together from different missions and added some stuff in, I have one question, plus an observation.

Question:
Why would N.A.S.A stitch together photos into one? For what reason?

Observation:
I cannot see any stitching in that photo and I've magnified it. It simply looks like the fake image it is, which is an image that's taken in a studio with a big silly spot light in the background that's supposed to be the Sun.

Normally it's easy to see stitched images but you cannot see any at all in this.

watch the video i posted it shows where the stitching is. also look at the crosses embedded in the photo they help.its is done because using this method not a single photo can get the whole thing in the shot from where he was standing. but if he moved back then he would have got less detail in the shot i would have assumed quite simple relay. go on the ALSJ website and you can see the original photos used to create the mosaic.

this one looks different to all the others out their? why didn't you say that before i told you what was wrong with it? lol its easy to say well that picture dsnt look right after i tell you. nice try though.

im not saying NASA don't edit photos. they do. any publisher does to make they pictures look more beautiful. but the problem comes when people start using edited photos to say the m whole thing was a hoax when the originals are easialy available if you just go to the source.. if you get the original photo you can see the problem bought up by the hoax claimer dosent even exist to begin with.

il use an example provided by sceptic himself.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 07, 2013, 02:55:16 PM

This.

real unedited photo


http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903.jpg

he uses this photo to try and prove a spot light was used because the sun light is not even over the surface but a simple search will show you that the original photo shows even sun light shown all over the surface. if he had just done a bit of research then he would have saved himself the embarisment.

What are are you talking about? Did you even read my first post?

watch the video i posted it shows where the stitching is. also look at the crosses embedded in the photo they help.its is done because using this method not a single photo can get the whole thing in the shot from where he was standing. but if he moved back then he would have got less detail in the shot i would have assumed quite simple relay. go on the ALSJ website and you can see the original photos used to create the mosaic.

It's no big deal. It just goes to show that any pictures N.A.S.A put up that get shot down, they can pretend they stitched them together and job done eh? 

Not really. They can't invent new photos when they need to. It's all their on the website for oh to scrutinise. They haven't suddenly claimed this is mosaic. They have always said it was.

Quote from: Pythagoras on February 17, 2013, 09:10:17 AM

this one looks different to all the others out their? why didn't you say that before i told you what was wrong with it? lol its easy to say well that picture dsnt look right after i tell you. nice try though.

im not saying NASA don't edit photos. they do. any publisher does to make they pictures look more beautiful. but the problem comes when people start using edited photos to say the m whole thing was a hoax when the originals are easialy available if you just go to the source.. if you get the original photo you can see the problem bought up by the hoax claimer dosent even exist to begin with.

il use an example provided by sceptic himself.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 07, 2013, 02:55:16 PM

This.

real unedited photo


http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903.jpg

he uses this photo to try and prove a spot light was used because the sun light is not even over the surface but a simple search will show you that the original photo shows even sun light shown all over the surface. if he had just done a bit of research then he would have saved himself the embarisment.

What are are you talking about? Did you even read my first post?

Yes and?

I didn't say it looked different, I said I couldn't tell and that it looked like a picture of a lander in a Nevada studio. Then you asked why I didn't say it looked different before your anticlimactic reveal implying that I thought it looked different now. See the incongruity?

When I have to explain obvious things to you in painfully plain terms it really makes me wonder why I even reply. I never link this, but damn, www.rif.com. Don't come back until you can follow a simple dialog.

no the comment about now saying it looks different was directed at sceptic sory for your confusion. it also appears i may have in my haste miss read his post above yours or he deleted a post.  either way sory for the confusion

Quote from: Rama Set on February 17, 2013, 10:24:56 AM

Quote from: Tausami on February 17, 2013, 10:18:24 AM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on February 16, 2013, 11:07:28 AM

Quote from: Saddam Hussein on February 16, 2013, 11:03:25 AM

Where is this headed?  We don't have to poke holes in literally every single picture to prove that there's a conspiracy.

Actually, that's exactly what you have to do.

You have it backwards. One must only find a single irrecoverable flaw. For example, a while back a faulty measurement found neutrinos to move faster than lightspeed. Had that finding been corroborated, despite the fact that it was a single error against mountains of proof, it would have completely disproven Einstein. A theory must work universally.

To put it another way, let's look at the burden of proof. First it falls upon NASA and requires them to demonstrate that they have landed on the moon. This being fulfilled, it falls upon those claiming that NASA's proof was falsified. That's where we come into the picture. Having demonstrated that some of NASA's evidence appears to have been falsified, the burden of proof no longer is upon us. We don't have to continue proving it ad infinitum, and couldn't. Some of their fakes will be near perfect. Instead, the burden of proof now falls upon those claiming us to be wrong. That's where you come in. So go ahead, prove us wrong.

Isn't all proof against the moon landing confined to Apollo 11?  What about the other missions to the moon?  Three other Apollo missions, 4 Luna Missions the surveyor missions. All these must be refuted as well.

As a side note, to say that an accurate measurement of a neutrino traveling FTL would "disprove Einstein" is a bit dramatic. It -may- show flaws in -some- of Einstein's work but remember, he did not even win his Nobel Proze for his work on relativistic models. His contributions to physics are substantial.

Oh, you know what I mean. It wouldn't disprove Einstein's contributions to Atomic Theory, for instance. That would be silly. I'm referring to relativity, as it rather relies on the cosmic speed limit. I didn't feel the need to clarify that, as it seemed rather obvious.


Anyway, Apollo 11 is the most well documented moon landing, and also when NASA was least experienced at faking them. Therefore, we're more likely to find issues. And let's be honest here. If they faked one mission, why would they not have faked the others?

I did know what you mean, but a lot of superlatives get thrown around here and he is one of my heroes

I won't speculate about faking other missions and in the absence of proof to the contrary no one else should either. The respectable thing to do would be to find the one shred of evidence to falsify for each mission. That would be much more convincing than blind speculation.

Until that evidence is falsified, I believe that we have at some point stepped on the moon.

Pythagoras I notice you occasionally insult FE'ers when you believe you have proved a point against them. I would humbly request you stop that behavior. I understand you're elated and wish to gloat, and gloat away as you must, but please refrain from personally insulting any of them.