moon hoax information index.

Quote from: Omega on September 02, 2016, 03:24:07 AM

So, why does someone think that he can uncover a decades old conspiracy by surfing the web and look at Youtube?

How crappy would a conspiracy be if you can just find out about it by looking at a couple of videos?

Seriously. What makes you, the conspiracy 'theorist', so special that you can find out a truth that, according to you, is hidden by a multi-billion dollar organization?

If you are that skilled in finding ultra top secret information on the internet, show me some pictures of the 2018 model of the iPhone.

We now have more information available to us than ever before. Why wouldn't the hive mind 'THE FLAT EARTH SOCIETY' notice new things?

You are not answering any questions. Nor have you shown me a picture of the 2018 version of the iPhone. All you can show is that there are people who make things up.

There is nothing wrong with voicing their opinion, which may or may not be based on facts, strong arguments and

>evidence<

No one has provided ANY evidence. Or else this 'conspiracy' was already proven and printed on the front page of every newspaper in the world.

What you have is a bunch of people who think they see stuff in pictures (not unlike a Rorschach test) and conclude things that have no basis in fact.

If they have a form of reason, they will review their own evidence, our arguments... and make a conclusion.

Now this is where you could not be more wrong.

Flat Earthers and Moon conspiracists start out with their conclusion and only accept evidence that they think supports their point.

Everything that is disproving their madness is *obviously* part of the conspiracy.

And you don't even see anything wrong with that reasoning!

Eeeeeeeerm.......wow ^.

You need a newspaper to tell you what to think ?

What about tv ?
Nothing but truth and honest information I suppose.

You have a long bumpy road ahead my friend,
But we will be here to help,
Gods speed good buddy.

Greetings Feuk,

Would you mind commenting on my answer to one of your questions? I gave you two 'before' and two 'after' pictures of Apollo moon landings. I'd like to hear your opinion, analysis and insight on them.

Cheers,
Denspressure

^

what ?

No need to get angry man,
Anyone would think you where emotionally invested.

Was it because I mentioned EPIC ?

Those images are 

Download Epic Perfect World.
Perfect World is MMORPG, and Epic is private server offering free unlimited play.

At least they have your FLAT map, you can enjoy.

~~~~~

If the Earth was really flat, why would "Doctor" Rowbotham have to create his own, wrong version of "perspective".

If the Earth was really flat, why would people have to create fake videos of "Sunset is vanishing point".
In reality Sun sinks below horizon, and you saw it for yourself.
BTW, if Sun is 3000 miles above ground, then bottom of it is closer to us than top.
Sun wouldn't get "eaten" layer by layer from bottom. Top would be victim of such "perspective" first.

People went to the Moon and it happened several times. Tell THEM they weren't.

Greetings Feuk,

Would you mind commenting on my answer to one of your questions? I gave you two 'before' and two 'after' pictures of Apollo moon landings. I'd like to hear your opinion, analysis and insight on them.

Cheers,
Denspressure

Hey man,
The images were just little blue squares with crosses in.

Quote from: feuk on September 02, 2016, 04:03:21 AM

^

what ?

No need to get angry man,
Anyone would think you where emotionally invested.

Was it because I mentioned EPIC ?

Those images are 

Download Epic Perfect World.
Perfect World is MMORPG, and Epic is private server offering free unlimited play.

At least they have your FLAT map, you can enjoy.

~~~~~

If the Earth was really flat, why would "Doctor" Rowbotham have to create his own, wrong version of "perspective".

If the Earth was really flat, why would people have to create fake videos of "Sunset is vanishing point".
In reality Sun sinks below horizon, and you saw it for yourself.
BTW, if Sun is 3000 miles above ground, then bottom of it is closer to us than top.
Sun wouldn't get "eaten" layer by layer from bottom. Top would be victim of such "perspective" first.

People went to the Moon and it happened several times. Tell THEM they weren't.

The people who "went to the moon" appear very confused, tight lipped and can't seem to remember very much about anything.
Some of the interview footage is 

Eeeeeeeerm.......wow ^.

You need a newspaper to tell you what to think ?

What about tv ?
Nothing but truth and honest information I suppose.

You have a long bumpy road ahead my friend,
But we will be here to help,
Gods speed good buddy.

But you get your info from conspiritards. They are WAY more trustworthy than a newspaper. I get it now. What was I thinking.

Quote from: Denspressure on September 02, 2016, 06:09:04 AM

Greetings Feuk,

Would you mind commenting on my answer to one of your questions? I gave you two 'before' and two 'after' pictures of Apollo moon landings. I'd like to hear your opinion, analysis and insight on them.

Cheers,
Denspressure

Hey man,
The images were just little blue squares with crosses in.

Fixed it, hopefully.

...
The people who "went to the moon" appear very confused, tight lipped and can't seem to remember very much about anything.
Some of the interview footage is 

Next time before you say something, make sure you know what are you talking about:

From publicly acknowledged information (and barring the hoax conspiracy theorists),
12 men (and 0 women) have walked on The Moon (astronomy),
all US astronauts from the Apollo Program missions:

Apollo 11: Neil Armstrong (NASA Civilian) and Buzz Aldrin (USAF)
Apollo 12: Pete Conrad (US Navy) and Alan Bean (US Navy)
Apollo 14: Alan Shepard (US Navy) and Edgar Mitchell (US Navy)
Apollo 15: David Scott (USAF) and James Irwin (USAF)
Apollo 16: John Young (US Navy) and Charles Duke (USAF)
Apollo 17: Gene Cernan (US Navy) and Harrison Schmitt (NASA Civilian)

Jack Schmitt

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Buzz Aldrin

and so on...

When you say disturbed ground are you really saying the lunar surface is not all one uniform colour ?

Are you saying it is?

There are many examples of what you are calling "disturbed ground" not listed as "landing sites",
Is this a problem ?

Really? Disturbed by what? The disturbed ground at the Apollo landing sites exactly matches that shown in images taken from the Apollo surface, and even those taken from lunar orbit by the Apollo Panoramic Camera. Do the Japanese and Indian images show the same patterns of disturbance as the Apollo images, yes or no? Simple question.

Any before and after images ?

On my site, go read it. Why are you avoiding it? I'll repeat my claim: there are no images of the lunar surface taken before the Apollo landings that show the same level of detail as shown in Apollo images. Those details are confirmed by probes from a number of different countries.

Ever wonder why mental gymnastics is a requirement with all of your "evidence" ?

Care to point out where I'm wrong? Your mental exercise regime doesn't seem to have got out of the chair yet.

Ever wonder why something as simple as a zoom lens is beyond the wit of man when it comes to imaging Apollo debris ?

From Earth? Or lunar orbit? Ever wonder why it can't be done from Earth - pretty easy to find out why. Ever wonder how much it costs to build expensive lunar probes? Those things haven't been sent up there to prove Apollo happened, cameras cost money.

Also swirly clouds happened before July 1969 daily and have happened every day since.
Hardly the convoluted smoking gun you make it out to be.

Not convoluted at all - it's very simple step by step logical explanation. Maybe get a grown up to help you with the big words.

Are you denying that the clouds in that satellite image are the same as the ones in the Apollo images?

Swirly clouds do indeed happen every day. But not exactly the same swirly clouds in exactly the same places every day. Every day's pattern of swirly clouds is a unique meteorological fingerprint, and no amount of arm waving or ramming your head in the sand is going to change the fact that every image of Earth taken by Apollo has exactly the right meteorological fingerprint shown in satellite imagery. By way of illustration, here is that part of that Earthrise image again complete with satellite views taken on the 23rd, 24th and 25th of December 1968.



Which one matches the Apollo 8 one? Which day do you think it was taken? Are the 3 satellite images the same?

Those images, by the way, are from my own copy of National Geographic published in 1969 and my own copy of the compiled book of satellite imagery for the period covering Apollo 8, published in 1970.

You have made absolutely no attempt to prove anything I've written on my site, or here, wrong - just written dismissive posts that amount to "I don't believe it" without any supporting case as to why.

Don't just tell me I'm wrong, prove me wrong.

And here we have AS11-40-5924 https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/22042570866/in/album-72157657350941603/ taken on the lunar surface at around 04:15 GMT on Juy 21st 1969. It is compared with 3 satellite images of Australia, one taken the day before, one taken on the day, one taken the day after.



Are all the satellite images the same?

Take a look at the band of cloud on the eastern Australian coast shown in the Apollo image. Which satellite image has that cloud on the coast, as opposed to inland or offshore? Which one do you think was taken at the same time as the Apollo one?

Prove it wrong.

And in the same vein, here's that Apollo 11 image again, as well as the same three satellite images. This time it is flanked by two other images taken from the moon during Apollo 11, one from the day before the landing (AS11-44-6550), one from the day after (AS11-44-6651).



Are all the Apollo images the same?

Are all the satellite images the same?

Do the details in the satellite images match those of the Apollo images?

And again, just for fun, here's that first image from the Apollo sequence in the previous post, taken in lunar orbit. If the ESSA image doesn't show enough detail here is the NIMBUS image from the same date. I also have another copy of the NIMBUS  image sent to me by the Australian Meteorology Bureau from their own hard copy and they are the same. I've stretched the Apollo image to show the same perspective as NIMBUS.

Do the details match, yes or no?



e2a: The NIMBUS image was taken about an hour after the Apollo photograph.

Onebigmonkey, do you think the before and after landing photos I posted can be used as an other piece of evidence pro-Apollo program?

Onebigmonkey, do you think the before and after landing photos I posted can be used as an other piece of evidence pro-Apollo program?

Very much so, particularly when you zoom in much closer. As I explained earlier in the thread, I have done an extensive examination of all the available pre-Apollo images and compared them with those available from the LRO (as well as China, JAXA and ISRO). I include 16mm and live TV images in that comparison.

The resolution of the Lunar Orbiter (LO) would have been good enough to identify anything on the surface the size of the lunar module - you can see images of the pre-Apollo Surveyor probes in them. Those early photographs were also publicly available long before the modern probes. I have hard copy books from the 1960s containing complete sets of LO imagery, and many lunar geology texts from the same period that rely heavily on them. They also used those photographs to make simulator models so they could practise the landings. Apollo 15's is shown at the ALSJ:

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15SiteModel.html

While they are good enough to show large objects they do not show the same level of detail as the Apollo images, and that's the important thing.

The detail in LO photographs is not good enough to show what is in Apollo images, which means the Apollo crews could not have known what they were going to be seeing. When Armstrong had to 'land long' he did so because he had no idea that there was a boulder field in his way. That boulder field is visible in LRO images, but not LO images. Furthermore, they had adequate detail of proposed landing sites for the early missions they were less concerned about high resolution images the later ones - they used actual photos taken by people for that. Even Apollo images taken from orbit have greater detail than LO ones in some areas. The USSR's Lunokhod surface images shows details not present in LO photographs but visible in Apollo orbital imagery.

Naturally you will get those that claim that either NASA are just hiding the real photos, or that, well, NASA, boo, bad guys. To coin a phrase, however, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Photos taken by probes from other countries confirm the details in Apollo and LRO images not just in terms of the surface disruption caused by human activity, but also in terms of the rocks and craters they saw while they were there. Not one photograph taken by China, the USSR, Japan or India shows anything that contradicts anything ever taken by NASA.

Feuk has been awfully silent about the photos I posted...
 

We never when to the moon. we never know what the moon is especially the dark side that looks like a flat mirror plate being moved in nature elements correct calculations forget einstein really he was insaine his ideas where sick forget his gravity laws its absurd sicko mind we followed to begin with newton who did not know anyting!

Your post and your signature are in direct contradiction.
You see sunset, but you don't believe it.
Instead, you believe what your selection of YouTube videos tell you.

We never when to the moon. we never know what the moon is especially the dark side that looks like a flat mirror plate being moved in nature elements correct calculations forget einstein really he was insaine his ideas where sick forget his gravity laws its absurd sicko mind we followed to begin with newton who did not know anyting!

Just noticed your little moving comment! So the Flat Earth Society's Wiki doesn't know anything either. I suppose, when it states

The Stars
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The stars in the night sky rotate around common barycenters above the earth just as the sun and moon do. From a location on the earth's surface the stars in the sky might seem to scroll across the night sky with Polaris at the hub. The underlying cause for this rotation is due to vast cornucopia of stellar systems orbiting around its center of mass - an imaginary point completely compliant with the Newtonian system. This is an extrapolated and more complex binary star movement.

Each star in a cluster is attracted to one another through gravitational vectors. Formation is created through gravitational capture - at least three objects are actually required, as conservation of energy rules out a single gravitating body capturing another. The stars maintain their movement over the years through Newton's first law: An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

And you will find that the Flat Earth Society seems to have quite a respect for Einstein,

Don't you think that it is your duty to inform them to "forget einstein really he was insaine his ideas where sick forget his gravity laws its absurd sicko mind we followed to begin with newton who did not know anyting!" Or whatever you are trying to say!


I believe it is written somewhere that "if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand."
Was that Mark 3:25? What hope has the Flat Earth Society got then?

And you will find that the Flat Earth Society seems to have quite a respect for Einstein,

No, not really.  If they did, they wouldn't keep misrepresenting his equivalence principle.

One of the cameras the astronauts on the moon was a hasselblad 500. But with no special modifications or cover. In two hours the temperature went from +200 to -100 degrees Celsius . yet, everyone knows above 50 degrees it introduces chemical changes in the photographic emulsion and makes the chemical parts of the camere expand and losen the lens. The extreme cold would render the batteries and exposure meter useless. And freeze the film, making it shatter like glass. The X-rays from the sun would fog the film, and the ultraviolet rays would destroy the colors.

Yet they are still able to give is countless of good, well exposed pictures. With a camera and film that, as I have just explained, would not work at all.

Explain?

One of the cameras the astronauts on the moon was a hasselblad 500. But with no special modifications or cover.

Not true.  It had at the least a reflective coating.

In two hours the temperature went from +200 to -100 degrees Celsius .

According to who?  The temperature of what?  A vacuum has no temperature and the camera most certainly did not make that temperature swing.

yet, everyone knows above 50 degrees it introduces chemical changes in the photographic emulsion and makes the chemical parts of the camere expand and losen the lens. The extreme cold would render the batteries and exposure meter useless. And freeze the film, making it shatter like glass.

IF the temperature swing is real and applies to the camera but I doubt it.

The X-rays from the sun would fog the film,

The sun is light in x-rays emitted unless it is during a large flare.  None occurred during apollo.

and the ultraviolet rays would destroy the colors.

Ultraviolet is typically blocked by glass.  how would it get past the lens?

Yet they are still able to give is countless of good, well exposed pictures.

And far more not good and badly exposed pictures.  Those that make the claim all the pics were good just prove they haven't looked at them all.  The vast majority of pics are either over or underexposed, out of focus, badly framed, etc.

With a camera and film that, as I have just explained, would not work at all.

If only you could prove it.

Pretty sure you are just playing devils advocate dens but the camera point is pretty good actually.

I think we more than likely did go to the moon. Does anyone know if the cameras were specially insulated or protected, I haven't looked into that part of it much to be honest.

I think this is the temperature shift that was mentioned.

So, how cold is space? That’s a nonsense question. It’s only when you put a thing in space, like a rock, or an astronaut, that you can measure temperature.

Remember there are three ways that heat can transfer: conduction, convection and radiation.

Heat up one side of a metal bar, and the other side will get hot too; that’s conduction. Circulating air can transfer heat from one side of the room to another; that’s convection. But out in the vacuum of space, the only way heat can transfer is radiation.

Photons of energy get absorbed by an object, warming it up. At the same time, photons are radiating away.

If the object is absorbing more photons than it emits, it heats up. And if it emits more photons than it absorbs, it cools down.

There is a theoretical point at which you can’t extract any more energy from an object, this minimum possible temperature is absolute zero. As we’ll see in a second, you can never get there.

Let’s look close to home, in orbit around the planet, at the International Space Station.

A piece of bare metal in space, under constant sunlight can get as hot as two-hundred-sixty (260) degrees Celsius. This is dangerous to astronauts who have to work outside the station.

If they need to handle bare metal, they wrap it in special coatings or blankets to protect themselves.

And yet, in the shade, an object will cool down to below -100 degrees Celsius.

Astronauts can experience vast differences in temperature between the side facing the Sun, and the side in shadow. Their spacesuits compensate for this using heaters and cooling systems.

http://www.universetoday.com/77070/how-cold-is-space/

Apollo 11

A comprehensive set of camera equipment was carried on board Apollo 11. This included two 16mm Maurer motion picture film cameras, a color television camera in the orbiting Columbia, and a black and white TV camera outside of the lunar module to transmit to Earth Neil Armstrong's first steps on the Moon's surface. A Kodak stereo close-up camera was used to film the lunar soil from only inches away. Three Hasselblad 500EL cameras were carried.

Two of the Hasselblad cameras were identical to those carried on the earlier Apollo 8 and 10 lunar orbit missions. During the Moon landing one Hasselblad was left aboard the Command Module Columbia, which remained in lunar orbit. Two were taken on the Lunar Module Eagle to the Moon's surface.

The Data Camera used on the lunar surface during the Apollo 11 mission and later Moon landings was a 500EL with additional modifications. A transparent glass Reseau plate, or register glass, engraved with grid markings was placed between the film magazine and the camera body, immediately in front of the film plane. The plate is engraved with crosses to form a grid and the intersections accurately calibrated to a tolerance of 0.002 mm. The crosses were recorded on every exposed film frame. From the markings, it is possible to calibrate distance and heights in photos taken either on the lunar surface or from space. Such markings were not new or unique to the space program. They were commonly used for large format scientific and aerial photography prior to the Moon landings, when the large size of the photographic negative could be distorted either during exposure or the printing process.

When film is normally wound in a camera, static electricity is generated on the film surface. This electricity is dispersed by metal rims and rollers, which guide the film, and by humidity in the surrounding air. In the lunar surface camera, however, the film was guided by the Reseau plate's raised edges. As glass is a poor electrical conductor, and with the absence of surrounding air, the charge built up between the glass surface and the film could become so great that sparks could occur between the plate and the film. In order to conduct the static electricity away and prevent sparking, the side of the plate facing the film was coated with a thin transparent conductive layer and silver deposited on the edges of the conductive layer. The electrical charge was then led to the metallic parts of the camera body by contact springs.

The outer surface of the 500EL data camera was colored silver to help maintain more uniform internal temperatures in the violent extremes of heat and cold encountered on the lunar surface. Lubricants used in the camera mechanisms had to either be eliminated or replaced because conventional lubricants would boil off in the vacuum and potentially could condense on the optical surfaces of the lenses, Reseau plate, and film.

Two film magazines for the lunar surface Hasselblad 500EL data camera were carried for use on the Moon's surface. Thirty-three rolls of the same film types as used on the earlier missions were carried on the Apollo 11 mission. The film used for Apollo 11 was loaded and several test shots exposed prior to flight. When the film magazines were returned for processing after the mission, the test shots were cut off and processed first. These were compared against accurate color charts to ensure that there would be no defects in processing the remainder of the film and that the colors would be most accurate.

Each film magazine was finished in the same silver color as the camera body. The film magazines were each fitted with a tether ring. To the ring, a cord was attached that permitted the entire camera to be lowered from the lunar module cabin to Neil Armstrong on the surface using a clothesline-like arrangement. The exposed film magazines were lifted from the surface in the same manner. The camera and lens were left behind and still rest on the Moon's surface at Tranquility Base.

http://history.nasa.gov/printFriendly/apollo_photo.html

Seems reasonable, the engineers at nasa are pretty clever, I'll have to read more.

One of the cameras the astronauts on the moon was a hasselblad 500. But with no special modifications or cover. In two hours the temperature went from +200 to -100 degrees Celsius . yet, everyone knows above 50 degrees it introduces chemical changes in the photographic emulsion and makes the chemical parts of the camere expand and losen the lens. The extreme cold would render the batteries and exposure meter useless. And freeze the film, making it shatter like glass. The X-rays from the sun would fog the film, and the ultraviolet rays would destroy the colors.

Yet they are still able to give is countless of good, well exposed pictures. With a camera and film that, as I have just explained, would not work at all.

Explain?

In a word, albedo.   Go and learn about heat transfer.

http://history.nasa.gov/printFriendly/apollo_photo.html

Seems reasonable, the engineers at nasa are pretty clever, I'll have to read more.

Yes, we see so many detractors claiming:
          We can't get through the "thermosphere", the "Van Allen Belts" or whatever.
          Everything will overheat in the direct sun on the surface of the moon.
          Re-entry of spacecraft is impossible.
          And so many other things.
Then read up NASA publications for the years before these missions and find that they foresaw these difficulties and work out solutions.

These critics seem to think themselves so smart in claiming things like the earth being too small compared to the moon in the Apollo 8 astronaut William Ander's Earthrise photo. Yet, when the data on the Hasselblad camera is used to work out the distance from moon to earth it comes out about right.

The other thing they did with the camera was redesign the internal parts to minimise the need for lubricants and to use lubricants that could cope with the temperature differentials it might encounter.

There are people who argue that the film should show elements of radiation damage, but no-one has ever been able to produce any kind of quantification of that claim

The Lunar Orbiter probes in the mid '60s took hundreds of photographs with a camera and film exposed to the vacuum of space and the radiation out there with no problem at all.

Earthrise photo you say? I've done a little research into that:

http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/earthrise/earthrise.html

The other thing they did with the camera was redesign the internal parts to minimise the need for lubricants and to use lubricants that could cope with the temperature differentials it might encounter.

There are people who argue that the film should show elements of radiation damage, but no-one has ever been able to produce any kind of quantification of that claim

The Lunar Orbiter probes in the mid '60s took hundreds of photographs with a camera and film exposed to the vacuum of space and the radiation out there with no problem at all.

Earthrise photo you say? I've done a little research into that:

http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/earthrise/earthrise.html

I can't give a link because it was on that "Verbotten Site" TFES.org, I will copy it here:

It was a reply to NASAPHOBE cell,  who liked to show smart he was.

Quote from: cel on September 23, 2016, 02:52:37 AM

First of all, NASA's info or images posted have been discredited by FEs, and somewhat doubted by GEs from what had happened to the moon landing movie making. Anyway, I advised you questfortruth not to use NASA images or posting. It doesn't help.

For example, your Apollo 8 image of the earth that was taken by one of the astronauts Anders could not be confirmed to be authentic as it was posted by NASA in its website. And by ordinary observation, the earth just appears to be just the size of the moon as we viewed it from earth at his full moon condition, and the size of the moon is about 1/3 that of earth from a distance of something like 238,900 mi. It's a bit puzzling because the photo was taken at 240,000 miles away from earth while they orbitted the moon (they were really pretty near the moon surface at this orbit distance)... and yet they saw an earth image just the same size as that of the moon. Direct calculation and common sense dictate that it should have been 3 times the size of moon image as seen from earth. Further, I came across websites that calculate the size of an object's image given the object's size, distance of the object from the camera or observer with known focal length, etc. and the image size of earth from Apollo 8's report came out to be much smaller as expected... I did this just for curiosity's sake. No need to debunk, hehe... With that image size, the distance from the observer came out to be much more than 240,000 mi that seems to be an unrealistic result already.... well, seems not reliable enough...

I am curious.

The information I have is that the camera used was [/size

Quote

The onboard cameras for the Apollo 8 mission were modified Hasselblad 500 EL cameras, with 80-millimeter and 250-millimeter Zeiss panacolor lenses.

The film was 70 mm sprocket film with gate dimensions (from what I can drag up) of 55 mm x 55 mm. 
On the 1920 x 1920 pixel photo I have the earth image is 287 pixels wide, or 55 x (287/1920) = 8.22 mm wide.
If the 250 mm lens was used this makes the angular size of the earth 2 x atan((8.22/2)/250) = 1.88°

If we take the diameter of the earth as 7,918 miles, this makes the earth to moon distance of 241,728 miles. Looks about right to me. So let's see your working.

Mind you I think you are terribly naive (or think yourself smart).
I really think that if NASA was trying to put one over on you, they would not have fallen into such a simple trap!

I hope my calculations are OK, the answer looks spot on.

Looks fine to me

Whenever I see the argument that the Earth should be bigger in the photographs, I always advise people to go outside and take a photo of the moon, then post how disappointed they are with the result when they look at it. The size of an object you're photographing depends on the lens. Simple as. Next week we have a supermoon. It will look huge. I guarantee that it will not look huge in a photograph unless you employ a really good zoom lens, and even then it won't look that huge.

The claim that a photo of Earth taken by NASA is somehow discredited because NASA it's on a NASA website is stupid. The photograph was public realm long before any websites were invented. You don't dismiss evidence because you don't like the source, you dismiss it because through deductive logic you can demonstrate that the evidence is false. The simple work I did on the page I linked to above shows quite easily that the Earthrise photograph is genuine, and everything in it can be verified.

Looks fine to me

Whenever I see the argument that the Earth should be bigger in the photographs, I always advise people to go outside and take a photo of the moon, then post how disappointed they are with the result when they look at it. The size of an object you're photographing depends on the lens. Simple as. Next week we have a supermoon. It will look huge. I guarantee that it will not look huge in a photograph unless you employ a really good zoom lens, and even then it won't look that huge.

The claim that a photo of Earth taken by NASA is somehow discredited because NASA it's on a NASA website is stupid. The photograph was public realm long before any websites were invented. You don't dismiss evidence because you don't like the source, you dismiss it because through deductive logic you can demonstrate that the evidence is false. The simple work I did on the page I linked to above shows quite easily that the Earthrise photograph is genuine, and everything in it can be verified.

I just hope for a clear sky here.