Take a look at that 5th one down of the Apollo 15 lunar lander. It looks like that was a hairy landing. It's lopsided. Incredible. These astronauts do have balls of steel (well, the ladies have something else).
I cannot believe that I still hear comments like that (I'm still not sure). There has not been a single piece of evidence presented that the Moon Landings were faked that was not *disproven* by scientific facts found in any college textbook. Specifically, note *disproven*, not *probably untrue*. For example, that rediculous claim that the lens 'crossheirs' being behind objects suggesting that they were 'photoshopped in' is entirely false. Very bright objects can bleed over into darker areas in photographs. That's not a theory. That's a fact. Do yourself a favor and read badastronomy or any other anti-conspiracy theory pages out there on the moon landing.
You can see that they were edited together as if you look at the little cross-hairs, you can see them misaligned every so often. Also, the image is probably shorter than it actually was as it would have been edited to make it all one size.
Closed AccountJul 17, 2006
When did Digg become Fark?
artmanJul 17, 2006
Take a look at that 5th one down of the Apollo 15 lunar lander. It looks like that was a hairy landing. It's lopsided. Incredible. These astronauts do have balls of steel (well, the ladies have something else).
fjacky66Jul 17, 2006
Yeah the earth is flat too.
mognJul 17, 2006
I cannot believe that I still hear comments like that (I'm still not sure). There has not been a single piece of evidence presented that the Moon Landings were faked that was not *disproven* by scientific facts found in any college textbook. Specifically, note *disproven*, not *probably untrue*. For example, that rediculous claim that the lens 'crossheirs' being behind objects suggesting that they were 'photoshopped in' is entirely false. Very bright objects can bleed over into darker areas in photographs. That's not a theory. That's a fact. Do yourself a favor and read badastronomy or any other anti-conspiracy theory pages out there on the moon landing.
jowitzJul 17, 2006
You can see that they were edited together as if you look at the little cross-hairs, you can see them misaligned every so often. Also, the image is probably shorter than it actually was as it would have been edited to make it all one size.
lazlongerJul 18, 2006
I don't like it. But I think QT sucks ass anyways....
mmmooJul 19, 2006
Actually djAnakin, you are wrong on both counts. These were not published a long time ago, these panoramas were only assembled by <a class="user" href="http://moonpans.com">http://moonpans.com</a> in the last few months. the individual frames which made up the panoramas have been available over the years to varying degrees of quality, but only recently have they been seamlessly assembled and then turned in VR pans by <a class="user" href="http://moonpans.com.">http://moonpans.com.</a> Second the Hubble has already imaged the moon!<a class="user" href="http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/1999/14/image/a">http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/1999/14/image/a</a>But as rsgeek points out, the problem is not focus. The problem is resolutionMike