File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
so...i can't find any modern pictures of the moon with the american flag on it....what's with that?
>> Anonymous
what are you looking for?.... a flag through a teliscope?
>> Anonymous
elaborating... if your looking for a modern picture of the moonlanding site.... you cant find one.... you can only get super high rez pictures of the landing site from space... when the sun hits it just right, theres a shadow from the lander base ....

Untill we get something like a 1/3 meter/pixel satalite orbiting the moon, i doubt your gonna see anything like that....

http://www.spacemartgifts.com/Last_Moon_Walk_Apollo17_1280x1024.jpg
>> Anonymous
>>429830
OP is trying to be edgy by implying that we never went to the moon, and for that he fails.
>> Anonymous
>>429841
Prove him wrong first
>> Anonymous
Mythbusters said so.

/thread
>> Anonymous
>>429846

I can't see *you* from space. Does that mean you're not real?
>> Anonymous
>>430058
qfe
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
small moon is small
>> Anonymous
>>429841
You never went to the moon.
>> Anonymous
>>430058
When were you in space?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>429777

Found one!
>> Anonymous
any pictures of the moon landing with stars in the background ?

or pictures of other space objects taken from the the moon
>> Anonymous
>>431241
>any pictures of the moon landing with stars in the background ?
As I understand it, this is not possible on the sunny side of the moon, due to the range of light intensity going beyond what any camera could cope with in a single exposure. Composite images in which varying exposures are shot in succession and combined into a single image could have been made, but I doubt that they were.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
wut?
>> Anonymous
>>431241

Do you know of any pictures taken from the Space Shuttle or Space Station where you can see stars? No you stupid fucker cameras aren't eyes. Learn what an Iris is and get back to me.


And as for other space objects??"?

WTF do you expect to be there? The hole damn place is just rocks.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>431256
Case in point

>>431241
You think the Russians are all in on this no star Conspiracy too?
>> Anonymous
>>431251
>>431256
>>431257
This being said, could not the spacemen have layed onto their backs and shot a picture straight up, hindering the light from the moon problem?
>> Anonymous
>>431257
Winner
>>431277
I'll fight you, to the death
Butt Toucher
>> Anonymous
>>431257
that photo was taken with the sun shining in to the camera

WTF lame excuse
>> Anonymous
what the hell are you ruckfucks fighting about? moar of this plz>>431257
>> Anonymous
>>431241
hold on to your tinfoil hats everyone
>> Anonymous
>>431277
in theory, but why would they want to?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
so...i can't find any modern pictures of the earth with any people on it....what's with that?
>> Anonymous
>>431367
win'f
>> Anonymous
>>431367
but we have seen pictures of earth with lights and such outlining the continents

are you seriousy tellin g me that the astronauts took no pictures from the moon that had stars in the background or earth in the background with a astronaut in the foreground or anything

fucking bullshit
>> Anonymous XIV
>>431454
To take a picture of stars you need a longer exposure than a normal snapshot - and anything bright in the foreground would be overexposed to the point of washing out the entire image. That's an interesting point about the earth, though - however if I recall all of the landing sites were near the middle of the Earth-facing side so the Earth would have been high in the sky for all of the landings.
>> Anonymous XIV
>>431487
One thing, - Earth would have been a crescent, otherwise it would have been night on the moon at the landing site.
>> Anonymous
>>431454
.. you do know that those are all computer generated, right? Human-generated light on earth does not reach space.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>431454
I'm not going to post the whole answer to that here, but...
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#stars

Just go to that site. Any question you might have about this sort of thing is answered there.
>> noko noko
>>431277
Heres a spaceship and a fucking million billion dollars worth of technology and training lol go lay on the fucking moon and shoot pichers of the earth lawl and then fucking call out what you think the clouds look like

wtf, thatd be a fucking waste of money so one tard on /hr/ could be happy.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>431344

Ok smart ass. what about this one.

The sun is on the other side of the fucking earth and there are still no stars.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Or how about this one. Go ahead find me any NASA/RSA picture where the weren't specifically trying to take pictures of stars with special cameras with stars in them.

And did you see the recent photos of the Chinese spacewalk? There weren't any stars in them either. Maybe the chinks are in on the conspiracy too.
>> Anonymous
>>431604
>>431605
You really believe they haven't gone into space to set up satellites?

Satellite technology is so evident, you cannot possibly believe there are none.

If they've gone into space to set up satellites, there is no reason why they wouldn't take photos. There is no reason why they would fake photos.
>> Anonymous
>>431542
Your definition of "waste" is distorted
>> Anonymous
>>431717
No yo misunderstood my post. I am a armature satellite tracker myself I see them with my naked eye almost every weekend.

My point was that the guy I was stalking to said that the moon pictures were faked because there were no stars. I was just showing him that there are no stars in these pictures which are absolutely real. Mostly because if the cameras were set up to be able to capture star light the all the other light would bleach the picture,
>> Anonymous
>>431542
Even that wouldn't be a waste, because we'd have landed on the moon again. Hell, we'd have a space suit that can lie down on its back, that's an honest-to-god improvement.

But I digress. No more on the lunar landing conspiracy please, it's been covered eleventy billion times before.
>> Anonymous
hump
>> Anonymous
Needs more high-resolution space-pics taken of objects of low brightness with minimal compression. Maybe if we're lucky some stars can actually be distinguished from noise.
>> Anonymous
Less bitching more cool pics of space stations/spacecraft.
>> Anonymous
"We never landed on the moon."

That's right we landed on it 6 times.
>> Anonymous
>>433051

We never landed on the moon 6 times either.
>> Anonymous
>>431454
either you are trollin or you live in a trailer
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
fake
>> Anonymous
>>433215
Of course its fake. It's a painting.
>> Anonymous
Russians were first in space, first on the moon, first space station, mars was an international effort

I think we know who won the race, US just kept running for some reason...
>> Anonymous
>>433514
Russians never sent a man to the moon.
>> Anonymous
There is no not Russians anonymous.
>> Anonymous
>>433519
Why? Americans sent man there because ... hmm.. just because they can. No practical reason at that moment.
Also I am russian myself but I don't think Russia had won. You see: in 20 years there will be chinese lunar bases, then - full-scale colonies, in 100 years there will be like half of billion chinamen on the Moon. Sorry, it's sad, but we've already lost to our yellow comrades.
>> Anonymous
>>433537
>>433537
??? ??? ?? ??????. ???? ?????? ???????. ????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? ? ?????????? ?????: ??? ???????- ????????????.
>> Anonymous
>>433539
please tell me more
>> Anonymous
>>433539
do you mean mystification like in freemasonary?