Such as?

Because they weren't on the dark side of the moon?

Because white reflects light better and more than any other color?

Because Buzz Aldrin bumped into it? See, the flag had been reinforced so that it would actually be visible instead of just hanging there, and when the astronaut bumped into it, that, combined with the fact that the flag was already crumpled from the trip, gave the impression that it was waving.

Next!

oh foxy, aren't WE a rock in space?

Heres one: Who gives a s***.

Let me find the website I bumped into during my lunar project


*One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot?


*The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust. The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired.








Ooh I like that one

They could have positioned the camera by awkwardly not stepping out of the craft in an effort to preserve the symbolism but hey that's just a farfetched theory that would never work right?

There were cameras outside the ship, pretty sure that was the one that took said shot..

Honestly, I'm not a rocket scientist, and I've never been to the moon, all I know is that there are perfectly reasonable explanations for all of it, gathered conveniently on one page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moo ... y_theories

It took me hell alot of time to gather and find these information but what ever.

1: How was Armstrong able to land perfectly and he barely did it in trainning?

2: There are killing rays called "Van Allen" it comes out from stars and it causes some cancer diseases, It can also damage space ships, The atmosphere protects us from it thankfully.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt
It is hard to shield from, It needs some protectives materials all togather it should be 1.5m thickness to give good results.

3: I reviewed the video I saw in the video the filming was very clear to their time's technology while most other videos filmed in space was fuzzy and the transmission was weak.

4: When the space shuttle landed it should've raise the dirts resulting in a storm that can even last for days.

5: If you ask me the boosters should make a hole, A big hole in the surface because of the high heat.

6: If Armstrong's foot prints made a trace then why didn't the space shuttle legs make a trace too? WTF Armstrong with a suit is heavier than a space shuttle?

7: As I heared the degree in the dark side of the moon is -250 and in the side facing the sun the degree is about 250, There were no conditioner only a cold liquid, If they were in the side facing the sun as they claim then how can they stand a degree of 225? 200 if we push it. ( It is O.K if their suits is heat insulator.)

8: I found this picture:

I can't believe that the flag banner is still standing after being crumpled this bad,... Unless it is just flicking.

10: No single star at all? I know the sun might be covering to most of them but no single star in any of their pictures?

11: All their pictures are good, How can you take pictures so good at zero gravity?
And if the camera is attached to their suits aiming the camera should be hard as hell and none of their pictures is off the mark.

The old model suits are such an insulator that the backpack you see on them is actually the cooling unit for the dude inside.

1: I hardly consider landing many kilometers away from the target a perfect landing, and he was flying on semi-automatic.

2: Yeah, so? They didn't fly to the moon in a ship made from tin foil, ya know. But I do believe they mentioned aren't protected well enough, and are probably exposing themselves to cancer later in their lives.

3: this was filmed with special cameras, and heavily worked on during the years to maintain and improve the quality of the shots. It's still completely crappy compared to the originals.

4: Welcome to a vacuum. Lunar dust is composed of silicate, which sticks together and wouldn't just fly up because something landed on it.

5: And? There are no pictures of booster marks because the boosters were used to take off, not to land.

6: Who says they didn't? They leave the same trace his footprints have.

7: What Thai said.

8:

This is two pictures taken shortly after eachother. To the right is Buzz Aldrin, with his hand up in one frame, and down in the second. To the right is the flag, is that waving, sir?

10(?): Do you see a star during the day? No, and this is because of the sun. Imagine how hard it would be to see anything WITHOUT an atmosphere to stop any of the sun's rays. Next to that, the cameras were set to take pictures during the day, and couldn't pick up the faint light of stars. Even the astronauts had a hard time seeing the stars, some even failing to see them at all. You won't see stars in Las Vegas, and that produces a LOT less light than the sun does, I'd wager.

11: Because there is gravity, enough so to put a tripod down and have it take some pictures. (Although I doubt that's how they set the cameras down) If there was no gravity, how in the hell would they have walked on the moon? I mean, it's not like they could use magnetized boots...

Tiny because there's a lot

The Pictures
NASA have never offered any explanation whatsoever for the numerous errors in the photographs, despite repeated questioning.
These errors include:
The Apollo 11 pictures show the ground in the distance being much darker than the ground in the foreground, as if the Astronauts were standing in a pool of light.

Several photos show evidence of extra lighting (as a professional photographer would use fill-in lights) but no such lights were supposed to have been used.

Some photos clearly show the light coming from "impossible" angles. In one instance, Aldrin's boot is lit from below as he descends the ladder.

Some photos contradict the TV camera pictures of the same events.

Some photos of one astronaut taken by the other are clearly taken from slightly above the eye level of the subject, but in his visor, the reflection of the astronaut with the camera shows it being held at chest level.

The length of the shadows in the Apollo 12 pictures don't agree with the angle which the Sun should have been at.

Some wide area photos show shadows pointing in different directions.

In the sound recording of the lunar landing, you cannot hear the sound of the engines. As the astronaut calls out the remaining distance to the surface, he is only a few feet away from a rocket engine which should have
been producing 10000 lb of thrust.





Topics like this .... what happened to our logical discussion section anyway ?

They don't need to fire rockets to land.
That would also risk them losing fuel they need to get back to Earth.

Hmm good point I guess I haven't even seen footage of the shutle landing.

Anyway are there any Legit lunar landing videos I can base further thoughts into ?

It got burned down after all people started to do was b**** about non-group members.

1: This could be to blame due to a couple of things. One, light from the sun reflected off of the photographer's space suit, which can create the 'pool of light', but it requires said photographer to be standing with his back to the sun. (which is actually true in a lot of the pictures.)

2-3: The moon reflects light, which is why we can see it during the night. The "Armstrong's boots being lit from below" was probably light being reflected from the dust under his feet. The extra lighting can also be attributed to this (or the pool of light explanation)

4: You lost me?

5: I haven't seen this, but the visors aren't flat. They're round, which means that the reflection you see was highly distorted. Or maybe the photographer was standing on higher ground.

6-7: Shadows on the moon are complicated by light reflected from the lunar dust and earth, as well as uneven ground and wide angle lens distortion. (this last one is the primary cause for what you noted at 7)

8: "In outer space, nobody can hear you scream." Sound doesn't travel in a vacuum. And they were actually using a very small amount of thrust, lowered gravity and such.