Originally posted by sasquatch672Well, you can take my logic anywhere except to the point you were trying to make. All I did was state facts and quoted a song lyric by the Chili Peppers.
Let's take your logic a bit further.
The part of the earth that I can see does not help me prove that it is round.
The sky having clouds in it today does not help me prove that it is not chartreuse.
The colorless nature of oxygen does not help me prove it is not plutonium.
Speaking of plutonium - so, now that we kicked Pluto's ass out of the Cool Kids Planet Club, do we have to rename it?
- Joined
- 29 Aug 06
- Moves
- 6850
Originally posted by boarmanWow dude. It wasn't night time.
I have taken numerous night time photo's and i always pick up the stars ,no matter how much light there is .The astronauts did not even mention the stars ,surely they would have been a spectacular site to justify mentioning.
Even if the lunar surface was not flat it does not explain the different shadows picked up in the cameras ,there should only be one light source (the Sun) and this would only give one reflection.
Do me a favor... Take a "night time" photo from the inside of your house with the lights on. Then see if you see any stars.
Since I know the "Fox" show you're referencing, let me debunk a couple you didn't mention.
- "There's no "cloud" of dust nor any dust on the lander's feet." To have "clouds of dust", you need air. The moon has plenty of dust, but no air. Any dust ejected by lander's engine would rapidly fall back to the surface (ie, think "which falls faster a 5 lbs ball or a 1 lbs ball). A dust particle with no air to suspend it falls right back down to Earth, er.. Moon.
- "Mountains in the background are too small and too close". No air, means no haze. Haze, (that grayning effect you see when looking at things on Earth), doesn't occur without air. This tricks your brain, which is accustomed to using that information to judge distance, into thinking that things appear closer and smaller than they really are.