Because of course the question of who rejects or accepts what is in itself nothing to do with who is gullible. The criterion is who is prone to blindly and uncritically swallow transparent bull rap. Like you swallowing bull rap about Sky (and other) TV satellites "not existing" or the Earth "being flat". That is gold star gullible.

Quote More laughter at your expense is your subscription fetish for CGI composite overload in [url=https://astronomynow.com/category/news/Astronomy Magazine[/url I bet there's plenty of sticky pages adhered to the CGI glossy hair-brushed cartooned sections. '"

So typical, you reject a scientific publication without even seeing it, because your faiths dictate that everything in it must be fake. Really pathetic. Embarrassingly so.


I have no interest in your faith, it is a matter for you if you believe in fictional deities, and if you really don't get the difference between faith in things for which there is zero evidence and scientific theory then you must be too stupid for words. But of course you well understand, you just don't know how to deal with the cold hard evidence, mountains of it, and so - as is your normal defensive mode - you dismiss all but your crank drivel as "fake" or "CGI" (your favourite). You kid yourself in this way all the time, so you don't have to confront reality.

[iSatellite TV is Analogue . Digital is an analogue radio signal, digitized compressed and so they're able to carry more information. You can still use your old analogue aerial to pick up digital signals as an example,, or you can be conned into paying for a satellite TV package and all they did is put a dish up which picks up digital same as an old aerial connection it's definitely not picking up signals from satellites they do not exist. Satellite dishes are just digital signal antennas in disguise that receive directly from land based signal relay and Deep Sea Cables with repeaters to boost the signal. The whole dish thing is a diversion.Thought this was obvious.

So if anyone who wants to take a bit of time to look up the launch to satellite ratio..seriously have a look. If you are doing it to grasp the rip off then great. If you are doing it to come back at me to argue that is perfectly plausible, then don't waste your time with me, seriously. I don't want my mind poisoned with clap trap and stuff that should be ridiculously evident to a person with the basic of basic common sense to see it for what it is. Bull.

I'm quite sure that there's plenty of people who have satellite dishes on their walls who have had them there for maybe 15/20 years and never had them aligned since they were installed. Bear in mind that satellites are supposed to have lives of 10/15 years and some lately being longer. That's due to covering their s. The point is, how come your dish has never had to be re-aligned when they change a so called satellite.

The sensible thinkers among us will have the answer easily. It's because satellites in space are a fantasy. They are a fantasy money maker so we have to pay for TV with the old excuse that it costs so much to send them up and maintain them. The silly thing is that once a satellite is in this 23,000 mile orbit. Yes, I said 23,000 mile orbit, just perfectly in Geo-synch with Earth, it cannot be repaired if anything goes wrong. Luckily they never ever need repairing until they fall out of orbit until the tefal headed fantasy merchants decide they fall. If people want to believe in all this crap then go right ahead, just don't try and convince me, because I'm done with the old "heads they win, tails I lose" bull. It's about time the coin has a heads and a tails and is tossed by fair means. Until that happens, we will always be slaves to the system.

For those who argue about GPS and such. It's all triangulation. It's a pretence of something special. Well just remember that when you're driving along with your Sat Nav stuck to your dashboard with no aerial or dish and yet you're getting told where you are. The voice that tells you to turn left or whatever is just following a pre-set map that is picked up as you drive to your destination between cells, just like your phone and even your radio. You notice your Sat Nav re-adjusts as you drive. As you hit another marker. Your radio re-tunes just the same. It's just a different set of frequencies and booster signals, etc.

The trouble with fantasy merchants who sell you bull is, they want more. they want to keep hitting you with more fantasy and sometimes they over do it. You see, one minute your satellite dish on your home is aligned perfectly to a Geo-synch satellite in 23,000 mile orbit and the next minute you've just bought a car satellite system that sits on your car roof and "Voiila" gives your kids the TV as you move about. And weirdly...no dish.

I understand that there will be many that are GENUINELY perplexed by some of this and will not accept it so readily. All I say to you people is, spend the time to sit back and think. Look up stuff. Do the jigsaw puzzle of the real picture and paint over the fantasy one that was set out for you. It can be slow and painstaking. I understand that. All I ask is, please learn to use your logic and your own common sense by not allowing the bullter fantasy merchants to bamboozle your mind and scramble it. Peer pressure and ridicule are two massive obstacles to overcome to even start to think. Do this and you have a chance to actually see through the blindfold's you/we were made to wear.

.As i said with GPS, TV the same, there is nothing that is allegedly done by 'communication satellites' that cannot be done with ground-based systems. Good luck and happy thinking.Which is more probable. That satellites exist but NASA seems incapable of confirming their existence or simply they do not exist at all? Occam's Razor makes it simple, they don't exist at all.[/i

And so all satellite installers are in on the scam - right? You cannot surely be as gullible as to actually give one second of credence to the bullcrap you just cut n pasted? Can you? You do know people are laughing at you? This is lunacy if the highest order, yet you can't see it! It is this sort of drivel that strongly suggests you're a troll, as it's hard to think anyone could be so gullible as to swallow that bull you just posted. Scientifically illiterate drivel.

This thread is incredible.

Since 2004 ?

Nah, but you certainly are entertaining

To be honest I’m in despair.

I blocked a certain poster, due to having totally different views.

Unfortunately other members keep quoting his posts – which makes them visible once again!

I like a good conspiracy as much as the next man, but for crying out loud.

If a big eared bloke and his dog from Preston can get to the moon, i'm sure NASA could manage it

I’d have thought you’d have had enough conspiracies theories regarding your beloved club, to spend time in this alternative universe.

No real conspiraces at Leigh, a few ' ideas ' floating about, but ultimatly what happens happens and we just carry on

Been quite interesting today ont telly, ive seen a moon buggy and astronauts on a film set in the Nevada desert, and a human on Mars

Nearly as entertaining as this thread

=#BF0000Hahaha have you heard yourself. Of course they're not in the scam. [iThey the installers just cable clip their route from dish to Sky box, then point the Aeriel to a certain location. Theres no inevitable satellite handshake that takes place.

I've had Sky TV for 28 years with no engineer interaction to realign my dish.Now the so called satellites we've been told are prone to malfunction quite frequently. So why haven't i needed an engineer to realign my antenna.

In fact i've had a varied Sky connection for the past 6 years which involves no interaction whatsoever with Sky. The antenna/dish recieves the analogue signal from ground based transmitters which signals my Digital box, which is then linked to my WiFi which connects to my mates server which decodes my Digital box and then Boom i have every channel going throughout our household.

Why do you think sky require a broadband connection. So they can control your package by dialling in from there centres. The dish is just an aerial picking up signal data from ground based transmitters. Then sky add your package through dialling in to your Digital box from the call centre. Simples... Don't tell me knowbody knows this. My Sky system has no interaction with sky hence no satellite interaction needed. So to answer your question installers do as they are told on where to point the antenna thats all[/i. Simples.

[iTypically the troll reverts to More Ad Hominem insulting behaviour. Why do you get so angry. Insults plus angst equals lost the squabble. Easy..[/i

You can receive paid sky channels by paying next to nothing not exactly free but minimum cost.
You need a satellite dish and a broadband internet connection and a 'SKY' V8 android box plus a '12 months gift' which costs about £10.
Bingo 'FREE' sky tv including all PPV at a cost of around £10 per year

[iYes 25 years. I remember many years ago in my primary school days before dishes were raging tuning our TV and we received The Super Channel and what was then Sky Channel which i thought was amazing because it shown American Wrestling and Aussie rugby league. Now they were supposedly Satellite channels so how did we receive these Channels through a common TV Aerial. I'll tell you why its because Satellites don't exist.[/i

[iThe dish won't move exactly. But if/when the so called satellite malfunctions which they would if they were truly orbiting.Yours/my dish would need re-aligning to another Satellite. Durrrh. And this never happens.

[iI ain't lying just like Tigerman has just posted. I pay £40 yearly subscription for 4x boxes. I get all channels including PPV without Sky's even knowing proving Satellites are a myth. I don't tell porkies like you i'm all about trut[/ih.

As stated, I believed in the Apollo missions for forty years. During that time no one would ever convince me that the whole thing was staged. Although this was purely an act of FAITH on my part because I'd never bothered to really delve into the minutiae. It was only after some issues cropped up which were tangential to NASA that I realized it really was the last institution I should be trusting.

I mean, just look at the farrago of lies which is the Apollo I fire. NASA passes the "accident" off as an unfortunate coalescence of haste and over enthusiasm.

Yet almost no-one is aware of the fact that Gus Grissom had become so frustrated with the complete and utter SHAMBLES which was the Apollo capsule that he'd gone so far as to pick the biggest lemon he could find from his orchard and hung it PUBLICLY on the craft using a coathanger for everyone to see and called a PRESS CONFERENCE to air his views.

Of course, it was just PURE CO-INCIDENCE that prior to the "Plugs Out" test which involved pressurizing the Apollo capsule to 20PSI of PURE OXYGEN (a combination which both the Apollo mission controllers and the designers of the capsule KNEW to be potentially LETHAL because of the propensity for just about any substance including fire-retarding asbestos to catch fire at the slightest opportunity) the Apollo capsule had been stuffed to the gunnels with just about every flammable and toxic substance NASA could lay its hands on. Just as it was PURE CO-INCIDENCE that the door mechanism had been changed making it practically impossible for anyone to escape in an emergency. Just as it was PURE CO-INCIDENCE that the team meant to oversee the test which normally surrounded the capsule were for some strange reason not at their posts.

[iBut in a flash fire situation it's doubtful they could have cranked open the door and extracted the three astronauts before they were overcome anyway - right?[/i

Well, that was certainly the story - UNTIL safety supervisor Thomas Ronald Barron made the ASTONISHING claim that Grissom, Chaffee & White had first reported the fire a full [uFIVE MINUTES[/u prior to the only communications transcript NASA released which led everyone to believe the three astronauts were incinerated in seconds. And it was just PURE CO-INCIDENCE that Grissom suddenly found he couldn't communicate with the tower prompting an exasperated comment, [i"How the hell are we supposed to go to the moon if we can't communicate between three buildings"?[/i

Just as it was PURE CO-INCIDENCE that days prior to the accident enquiry when he was about to release a DAMNING FIVE-HUNDRED PAGE safety report which would have undoubtedly sunk the program Barron and his wife were killed when their car mysteriously stalled on a level-crossing and they were crushed beneath a freight train. And the CO-INCIDENCES just kept piling up when contrary to state law both bodies were cremated without autopsy.

And yet we are supposed to have FAITH in NASA?

As for the moon landings - I suspect that many people can't see the truth PRECISELY BECAUSE the deception is literally staring them in the face.

Regarding the supposed cooling systems in both the suits and the Lunar Excursion Module - it really isn't difficult to determine that even the notion is patently LUDICROUS.

Turn your oven to 180 degrees centigrade and leave it for a few minutes to warm up. Now open the door and stick your hand in. In that brief moment you can tolerate the heat you are getting just a taste of what both cooling systems had to overcome for hours - even days.

According to NASA's own specifications the moonwalkers were cooled by barely more than THREE LITRES of water circulating through both the backpack and the suit and then vented onto the heat exchanger (did anyone SEE ice crystals escaping into the vacuum?) - which of course reduced the level of water each time. And this is BEFORE the suit's reflectivity becomes compromised by lunar dust.

And as for the LEM - think of 190 degrees beating down on every square inch of its paper-thin skin. And if we are to believe Neil Armstrong & Buzz Aldrin it was so COLD inside the LEM they were [i"constantly shivering"[/i. Laughable!

Think of Neil Armstrong's quiet, assured and professional tone as he hunts for a safe place to land the LEM. Now think of the [uROCKET MOTOR[/u which is barely more than a [uCOUPLE OF METRES[/u below his feet delivering five-figures of thrust. Boy! NASA must really have spent big on high-technology sound-proofing because Armstrong never raised his voice once.

And whilst we are at it - the hypergolic fuel NASA claims was used burns up at around 4,000/5,000C. Are we to supposed to believe the moon's surface is so heat-resistant that instead of turning to LAVA immediately below the LEM (bear in mind that many earth rocks are reduced to this state at 1,000C) it retarded the heat as well as any heat-shield?

As for the photographs - even though there's plenty of evidence of multiple shadows (remember, the astronauts brought no separate light sources according to the manufacturers of the camera - Hasselblad) - as a Canon-accredited photographer who has worked extensively with fast lenses and multiple flash packs I tend to concentrate purely on LIGHT.

You see - anyone who understands the full significance of the INVERSE SQUARE LAW, f-stops and dynamic range must instantly realise there's something very WRONG with many of the photographs.

Given that the sun effectively functions as a [ipoint-source of light[/i any original and unaltered photograph which features significant light fall-off that cannot be explained by the casting of shadows can [uONLY[/u be fake. There are no ifs and buts about this and if you think so you really don't understand the INVERSE SQUARE LAW which is ... well ... an IMMUTABLE LAW.

As for those photographs in which the "sun" backlights the scene and yet the subject is clearly visible (rather than turning to a silhouette) despite the fact that the camera is stopped down to such an extent that everything in the scene is PIN SHARP and yet the photographer is not using a tripod - LAUGHABLE.

If you have a camera, remote trigger and a flash do yourself a favour and try to recreate that shot in low light whilst handholding at f/22 or above using everyday items. A flash is a good analogue for the sun providing you don't place it close.

When you have finished let me know how you got on.

Hilarious. You do realise that all the Astra satellites used by Sky point their transmission to a particular point of the earth, you know, the point at which your dish is aligned to? The sky dishes dont actually align to the satelites themselves. As for satellites malfunctioning, yes it happens but its extremely rare. Most just run out of fuel and all that happens is another of the Astra satellites take over.

Is frightening, some of the stories you believe

Regards

King James

Quote ="Mugwump"... And yet we are supposed to have FAITH in NASA?'" If you like, but I'm not a "faith" person, I'll stick with the science and facts. Quote ="Mugwump" Regarding the supposed cooling systems in both the suits and the Lunar Excursion Module - it really isn't difficult to determine that even the notion is patently LUDICROUS. Turn your oven to 180 degrees centigrade and leave it for a few minutes to warm up. Now open the door and stick your hand in. In that brief moment you can tolerate the heat you are getting just a taste of what both cooling systems had to overcome for hours - even days. '" What nonsense. When you put your hand inside the hot oven you feel the hot GAS. There IS no gas on the Moon. Back to the drawing board. Plus, of course I can put my hand in the oven, and keep it there. I can even handle safely and easily the extremely hot shelveas and any baking trays - as long as I put on my million dollar spacesuit. Or - a £3 oven glove from Asda will enable me to perform just such miracles. So a £3 oven glove can protect us from much higher temperatures. Just think how much more proetction a designer million dollar spacesuit could do Quote ="Mugwump"And as for the LEM - think of 190 degrees beating down on every square inch of its paper-thin skin. And if we are to believe Neil Armstrong & Buzz Aldrin it was so COLD inside the LEM they were [i"constantly shivering"[/i. Laughable! '" Why would they say that if not true? Wouldn't it be a very odd thing to script? But, here's a nice summary Quote The ascent stage was covered in aluminum that was painted, etched, or anodized to give each panel precise absorptive properties. The ascent engine fuel likes to be kept at about room temperature, so the bulbous tank enclosures had a reasonable fraction of black panels. The electronics bay was in the back and subjected to the full brunt of the rising sun. Its panels are therefore quite brightly colored to reflect away most of that. The crew cabin was on the shady side and so simply didn't get much sun.'" Quote ="Mugwump"Think of Neil Armstrong's quiet, assured and professional tone as he hunts for a safe place to land the LEM. Now think of the [uROCKET MOTOR[/u which is barely more than a [uCOUPLE OF METRES[/u below his feet delivering five-figures of thrust. Boy! NASA must really have spent big on high-technology sound-proofing because Armstrong never raised his voice once. '" Er, does the fact that jet thrusters are (for obvious reasons) silent in a vacuum, assist you? Add to that the facts that Armstrong's mike was inside his spacesuit and thus well-insulated from any noise from outside the spacesuit, and I really don't see any issue here. Quote ="Mugwump"And whilst we are at it - the hypergolic fuel NASA claims was used burns up at around 4,000/5,000C. Are we to supposed to believe the moon's surface is so heat-resistant that instead of turning to LAVA immediately below the LEM (bear in mind that many earth rocks are reduced to this state at 1,000C) it retarded the heat as well as any heat-shield? '" The LEm didn't descend vertically like Thunderbirds, it came along a path, and only a very brief final part of the descent was at practically zer ground speed. At this point the LEM was already descending very slowly and so only gentle thrusts would be needed to slow the descnt in the last seconds for a gentle klanding. Before the actual touchdown no part of the surface would be heated as the fuel comes out basically as gas and - that pesky vacuum again - does not behave like on Earth, but extremely rapidly expands in the vacuum of space. So the point is entirely bogus as it wasn't sitting there like some welder's torch incinerating the Moon. Quote ="Mugwump"As for the photographs - even though there's plenty of evidence of multiple shadows (remember, the astronauts brought no separate light sources according to the manufacturers of the camera - Hasselblad) - as a Canon-accredited photographer who has worked extensively with fast lenses and multiple flash packs I tend to concentrate purely on LIGHT. You see - anyone who understands the full significance of the INVERSE SQUARE LAW, f-stops and dynamic range must instantly realise there's something very WRONG with many of the photographs. '" There is absolutley nothing "wrong" with any of the photographs. These objections have been debunked to death and it is asinine to persist with them. Quote ="Mugwump"As for those photographs in which the "sun" backlights the scene and yet the subject is clearly visible (rather than turning to a silhouette) despite the fact that the camera is stopped down to such an extent that everything in the scene is PIN SHARP and yet the photographer is not using a tripod - LAUGHABLE. '" Without reference to a specific image there is no point in going into detail, but you seem to make the same basic mistake that most moon hoax nuts do, expecting "silhouettes. In fact, there is plenty of scattered light on the Moon, the sunlight hits the regolith, and is scattered in all directions at it is reflected. Why (and you may find this hard to believe, but trust me) not only can that reflected light illuminate astronauts on the surface, it can also illuminate your own back yard, despite it being 250,000 miles away. Quote ="Mugwump"If you have a camera, remote trigger and a flash do yourself a favour and try to recreate that shot in low light whilst handholding at f/22 or above using everyday items. A flash is a good analogue for the sun providing you don't place it close. When you have finished let me know how you got on. '" The light on the Moon is anything but "low". When the sun comes up, it is 100% neat sun, no atmosphere to scatter. How could it be "low light"? You're not stupid, so why say that? The light is so high, it seems very bright from fscking Earth. What is your definition of "low light"???? Anyway, I wouldn't waste my time as I can see the real images, and as I'm not planning to go to the moon any time soon, and as I don't own a 70mm 500EL Hasselblad If you are interested, see here: history.nasa.gov/apollo_photo.html

Quote ="Mugwump"... And yet we are supposed to have FAITH in NASA?'" If you like, but I'm not a "faith" person, I'll stick with the science and facts. Quote ="Mugwump" Regarding the supposed cooling systems in both the suits and the Lunar Excursion Module - it really isn't difficult to determine that even the notion is patently LUDICROUS. Turn your oven to 180 degrees centigrade and leave it for a few minutes to warm up. Now open the door and stick your hand in. In that brief moment you can tolerate the heat you are getting just a taste of what both cooling systems had to overcome for hours - even days. '" What nonsense. When you put your hand inside the hot oven you feel the hot GAS. There IS no gas on the Moon. Back to the drawing board. Plus, of course I can put my hand in the oven, and keep it there. I can even handle safely and easily the extremely hot shelveas and any baking trays - as long as I put on my million dollar spacesuit. Or - a £3 oven glove from Asda will enable me to perform just such miracles. So a £3 oven glove can protect us from much higher temperatures. Just think how much more proetction a designer million dollar spacesuit could do Quote ="Mugwump"And as for the LEM - think of 190 degrees beating down on every square inch of its paper-thin skin. And if we are to believe Neil Armstrong & Buzz Aldrin it was so COLD inside the LEM they were [i"constantly shivering"[/i. Laughable! '" Why would they say that if not true? Wouldn't it be a very odd thing to script? But, here's a nice summary Quote The ascent stage was covered in aluminum that was painted, etched, or anodized to give each panel precise absorptive properties. The ascent engine fuel likes to be kept at about room temperature, so the bulbous tank enclosures had a reasonable fraction of black panels. The electronics bay was in the back and subjected to the full brunt of the rising sun. Its panels are therefore quite brightly colored to reflect away most of that. The crew cabin was on the shady side and so simply didn't get much sun.'" Quote ="Mugwump"Think of Neil Armstrong's quiet, assured and professional tone as he hunts for a safe place to land the LEM. Now think of the [uROCKET MOTOR[/u which is barely more than a [uCOUPLE OF METRES[/u below his feet delivering five-figures of thrust. Boy! NASA must really have spent big on high-technology sound-proofing because Armstrong never raised his voice once. '" Er, does the fact that jet thrusters are (for obvious reasons) silent in a vacuum, assist you? Add to that the facts that Armstrong's mike was inside his spacesuit and thus well-insulated from any noise from outside the spacesuit, and I really don't see any issue here. Quote ="Mugwump"And whilst we are at it - the hypergolic fuel NASA claims was used burns up at around 4,000/5,000C. Are we to supposed to believe the moon's surface is so heat-resistant that instead of turning to LAVA immediately below the LEM (bear in mind that many earth rocks are reduced to this state at 1,000C) it retarded the heat as well as any heat-shield? '" The LEm didn't descend vertically like Thunderbirds, it came along a path, and only a very brief final part of the descent was at practically zer ground speed. At this point the LEM was already descending very slowly and so only gentle thrusts would be needed to slow the descnt in the last seconds for a gentle klanding. Before the actual touchdown no part of the surface would be heated as the fuel comes out basically as gas and - that pesky vacuum again - does not behave like on Earth, but extremely rapidly expands in the vacuum of space. So the point is entirely bogus as it wasn't sitting there like some welder's torch incinerating the Moon. Quote ="Mugwump"As for the photographs - even though there's plenty of evidence of multiple shadows (remember, the astronauts brought no separate light sources according to the manufacturers of the camera - Hasselblad) - as a Canon-accredited photographer who has worked extensively with fast lenses and multiple flash packs I tend to concentrate purely on LIGHT. You see - anyone who understands the full significance of the INVERSE SQUARE LAW, f-stops and dynamic range must instantly realise there's something very WRONG with many of the photographs. '" There is absolutley nothing "wrong" with any of the photographs. These objections have been debunked to death and it is asinine to persist with them. Quote ="Mugwump"As for those photographs in which the "sun" backlights the scene and yet the subject is clearly visible (rather than turning to a silhouette) despite the fact that the camera is stopped down to such an extent that everything in the scene is PIN SHARP and yet the photographer is not using a tripod - LAUGHABLE. '" Without reference to a specific image there is no point in going into detail, but you seem to make the same basic mistake that most moon hoax nuts do, expecting "silhouettes. In fact, there is plenty of scattered light on the Moon, the sunlight hits the regolith, and is scattered in all directions at it is reflected. Why (and you may find this hard to believe, but trust me) not only can that reflected light illuminate astronauts on the surface, it can also illuminate your own back yard, despite it being 250,000 miles away. Quote ="Mugwump"If you have a camera, remote trigger and a flash do yourself a favour and try to recreate that shot in low light whilst handholding at f/22 or above using everyday items. A flash is a good analogue for the sun providing you don't place it close. When you have finished let me know how you got on. '" The light on the Moon is anything but "low". When the sun comes up, it is 100% neat sun, no atmosphere to scatter. How could it be "low light"? You're not stupid, so why say that? The light is so high, it seems very bright from fscking Earth. What is your definition of "low light"???? Anyway, I wouldn't waste my time as I can see the real images, and as I'm not planning to go to the moon any time soon, and as I don't own a 70mm 500EL Hasselblad If you are interested, see here: history.nasa.gov/apollo_photo.html

Sky say though:


The point is, you are getting the Sky satellite feed, whether legally or not. If it was all coming through some analogue ground broadcats you would be wasting your money needlessly, even if it isn't very much.

Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"If you like, but I'm not a "faith" person, I'll stick with the science and facts. '" Nope. Faith is PRECISELY the word I'm looking for. '" Quote What nonsense. When you put your hand inside the hot oven you feel the hot GAS. There IS no gas on the Moon. Back to the drawing board.'" WTF are you talking about? I thought you mentioned the word "science" Quote Plus, of course I can put my hand in the oven, and keep it there. I can even handle safely and easily the extremely hot shelveas and any baking trays - as long as I put on my million dollar spacesuit. Or - a £3 oven glove from Asda will enable me to perform just such miracles. So a £3 oven glove can protect us from much higher temperatures. Just think how much more proetction a designer million dollar spacesuit could do '" Don't you mean - "magic spacesuit"? Quote Er, does the fact that jet thrusters are (for obvious reasons) silent in a vacuum, assist you? Add to that the facts that Armstrong's mike was inside his spacesuit and thus well-insulated from any noise from outside the spacesuit, and I really don't see any issue here.'" You dumb oik. It doesn't matter whether every last molecule of air was pumped out of space - Sound waves are travelling vibrations of particles in media such as air, water or METAL. Maybe you should take science again at school. Quote The LEm didn't descend vertically like Thunderbirds, it came along a path, and only a very brief final part of the descent was at practically zer ground speed. At this point the LEM was already descending very slowly and so only gentle thrusts would be needed to slow the descnt in the last seconds for a gentle klanding. Before the actual touchdown no part of the surface would be heated as the fuel comes out basically as gas and - that pesky vacuum again - does not behave like on Earth, but extremely rapidly expands in the vacuum of space. So the point is entirely bogus as it wasn't sitting there like some welder's torch incinerating the Moon.'" Ah, I get it. A magic thruster. Quote There is absolutley nothing "wrong" with any of the photographs. These objections have been debunked to death and it is asinine to persist with them. Without reference to a specific image there is no point in going into detail, but you seem to make the same basic mistake that most moon hoax nuts do, expecting "silhouettes. In fact, there is plenty of scattered light on the Moon, the sunlight hits the regolith, and is scattered in all directions at it is reflected. Why (and you may find this hard to believe, but trust me) not only can that reflected light illuminate astronauts on the surface, it can also illuminate your own back yard, despite it being 250,000 miles away. '" You mean, the regolith which reflects approximately 8% of sunlight - equivalent to bitumen? Or is it "magic regolith"? You don't understand the significance of the Inverse Square Law and the sun's HUGE DISTANCE from the subject, do you? Quote The light on the Moon is anything but "low". When the sun come sup, it si 100% sun, no atmosphere to scatter. How could it be "low light? You're not stupid, so why say that? The light is so high, it seems very bright from fscking Earth. What is your definition of "low light"????'" I defined the sun as a point source of light. Given that there are no other light sources (and as you say - no atmospheric scatter) it's perfectly acceptable to classify ALL the shots as low light from a flash photography perspective because as I've said - a flash functions equally well as a point source of light providing it is not close. Quote Anyway, I wouldn't waste my time as I can see the real images, and as I'm not planning to go to the moon any time soon, and as I don't own a 70mm 500EL Hasselblad'" You don't need a Hasselblad you dumbass. The laws of photography work equally well for all cameras. Quote If you are interested, see here: history.nasa.gov/apollo_photo.html'" Jesus. You are beyond help.

Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"If you like, but I'm not a "faith" person, I'll stick with the science and facts. '" Nope. Faith is PRECISELY the word I'm looking for. '" Quote What nonsense. When you put your hand inside the hot oven you feel the hot GAS. There IS no gas on the Moon. Back to the drawing board.'" WTF are you talking about? I thought you mentioned the word "science" Quote Plus, of course I can put my hand in the oven, and keep it there. I can even handle safely and easily the extremely hot shelveas and any baking trays - as long as I put on my million dollar spacesuit. Or - a £3 oven glove from Asda will enable me to perform just such miracles. So a £3 oven glove can protect us from much higher temperatures. Just think how much more proetction a designer million dollar spacesuit could do '" Don't you mean - "magic spacesuit"? Quote Er, does the fact that jet thrusters are (for obvious reasons) silent in a vacuum, assist you? Add to that the facts that Armstrong's mike was inside his spacesuit and thus well-insulated from any noise from outside the spacesuit, and I really don't see any issue here.'" You dumb oik. It doesn't matter whether every last molecule of air was pumped out of space - Sound waves are travelling vibrations of particles in media such as air, water or METAL. Maybe you should take science again at school. Quote The LEm didn't descend vertically like Thunderbirds, it came along a path, and only a very brief final part of the descent was at practically zer ground speed. At this point the LEM was already descending very slowly and so only gentle thrusts would be needed to slow the descnt in the last seconds for a gentle klanding. Before the actual touchdown no part of the surface would be heated as the fuel comes out basically as gas and - that pesky vacuum again - does not behave like on Earth, but extremely rapidly expands in the vacuum of space. So the point is entirely bogus as it wasn't sitting there like some welder's torch incinerating the Moon.'" Ah, I get it. A magic thruster. Quote There is absolutley nothing "wrong" with any of the photographs. These objections have been debunked to death and it is asinine to persist with them. Without reference to a specific image there is no point in going into detail, but you seem to make the same basic mistake that most moon hoax nuts do, expecting "silhouettes. In fact, there is plenty of scattered light on the Moon, the sunlight hits the regolith, and is scattered in all directions at it is reflected. Why (and you may find this hard to believe, but trust me) not only can that reflected light illuminate astronauts on the surface, it can also illuminate your own back yard, despite it being 250,000 miles away. '" You mean, the regolith which reflects approximately 8% of sunlight - equivalent to bitumen? Or is it "magic regolith"? You don't understand the significance of the Inverse Square Law and the sun's HUGE DISTANCE from the subject, do you? Quote The light on the Moon is anything but "low". When the sun come sup, it si 100% sun, no atmosphere to scatter. How could it be "low light? You're not stupid, so why say that? The light is so high, it seems very bright from fscking Earth. What is your definition of "low light"????'" I defined the sun as a point source of light. Given that there are no other light sources (and as you say - no atmospheric scatter) it's perfectly acceptable to classify ALL the shots as low light from a flash photography perspective because as I've said - a flash functions equally well as a point source of light providing it is not close. Quote Anyway, I wouldn't waste my time as I can see the real images, and as I'm not planning to go to the moon any time soon, and as I don't own a 70mm 500EL Hasselblad'" You don't need a Hasselblad you dumbass. The laws of photography work equally well for all cameras. Quote If you are interested, see here: history.nasa.gov/apollo_photo.html'" Jesus. You are beyond help.

Hypergolic fuelled rocket motor



Yep, that's some heat-resistant regolith. Not even a scratch.

Must have fitted the motor with a silencer, too.

Backlighting (in far better light conditions than on the moon).



Compare with countless backlit NASA images. Notice anything?





Any experienced flash photographer knows the difference between NATURAL light and THEATRICAL light. And as I said - the [uLAWS[/u of photography work equally well on the moon and regardless of camera technology.

Suit "reflectivity"

Answers on a postcard - what does the Inverse Square Law say about this lighting?

Very good! You're trolling, I'm not playing. Stan will swallow it so I'll let you play with each other.