Did The Moon Landing Occur - Yes or No?

[Jeremyhfht]

roflcopter. This is hilarious. Although it is kind of sad. But don't be fooled, these are high-class attempts at duplicating NASA. The main ways to find out aside from google are:

1. Do a "Whois lookup" on those websites. It'll show up as some business, not NASA. Note: Do not "Whois" Nasa.gov, "Whois" the entire website (being the xxx.xxx.gov). Otherwise you will get the legit Nasa website.

2. You can check the images. They're obviously edited in MSpaint.

3. You can check how much information there is on the website. The real NASA website has a lot more images and information. This is one of the more obvious things, as it's updated constantly.

If you google "NASA" and "JPL" separately, what shows up? It's not "XXX.XXX.gov". It's "XXX.gov". The ones with the two subdomains are the fake ones.

And what makes me think it's phony? the obvious fact most images there used by conspiracy theorists are edited in MSPAINT. Look at the fake JPL website, for example. You'll easily see this.

Edit:

To add, there's also the fact that websites normally cannot have two subdomains. That's another way to tell it's a fake website. If it were, for example, "XXX.whatever.gov" rather than "www. XXX.whatever.gov", then it's possible to be a legit website.

Example: Science.nasa.gov is a legit website. It doesn't have the www. before it.

Example2: the fake domain is not Nasa.gov. It's HQ.Nasa.gov. Put emphasis on the little "dot" there between HQ and NASA.

 

[orcot]

not everything envolving with space has to be envolved with NASA
space daily for example gives constant accurate articles with no direct connection to NASA.

 

[D H]

Do you have the foggiest idea of how the Domain Name System works?

Try this:

1. Go to the main NASA web page, http:www.nasa.gov
2. Near the bottom you will see two pull-down menus. Select "Jet Propulsion Laboratory" from the right menu and press "Go". That will bring you to this page: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/jpl/home/index.html
3. Press "Missions" on the left (not the top), which will bring you to this page: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/jpl/missions/index.html
4. Scroll down until you see "Mars Exploration Rovers". Press "Read More", which will bring you to this page: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/jpl/missions/mer.html
5. Near the bottom, under "Related Links", press "Mars Exploration Rover mission page". That will bring you to this page: http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html

 

[Singularity]

Once again, you are letting your "common sense" lead you astray.

Even though the surface is uniformly lit by the sun, it would not appear to be a uniform brightness as seen form the vantage of the camera. ....

 

[Janus58]

While the shadows are dark in this photo, You only see a few of the dunes, so you don't get the blending effect with distance between shadow ans highlight. Neither is the vantage point of the camera with respect to the height of the dunes correct. Also, the lighting does not appear to be coming from behind the dunes.

Lighting angle not the same as in the moon photo (not low in the sky and behind the subjects. Also, the problem with this and the following photo is that they are taken on Earth, where the light scattered from the sky tends to fill in shadows. This is known as ambient lighting. You don't get this type of ambient lighting on the moon.
This lighting softens the difference between highlight and shadow on the Earth. So even if you reproduced the same lighting, camera angle and surface bumpiness in an Earth shot, the darkening with distance effect would be much less pronounced.

Cloudly sky with very soft shadows.


My explanation stands. None of the pictures reproduce the conditions under which the Moon shot was taken. Just admit that you were mistaken, and that lighting on the moon shot does appear to be natural after all. It would be the mature thing to do.

 

[Singularity]

...
Even though the surface is uniformly lit by the sun, it would not appear to be a uniform brightness as seen form the vantage of the camera. ....

....
My explanation stands. None of the pictures reproduce the conditions under which the Moon shot was taken. ....

Do u think that the edges of Moon in this pic should be darker ?

 

[Singularity]

I always suspected something fishy in this pic, now i know, i was so dumb not to notice it. Obviously there are some people out there smarter than me .

So here we go,

The sun seems to discriminate between the astronot and the background, look how sun meticulously spotlights the astronot compared to the darker moonscape behind him.

And look behind him near the edge of moonland; do u think moon is so small that the horizon will be at walking distance, look at the shiny object at the left side of this photo, its so near to the horizon.

Heres Another Nail in the Coffin,

Guys, Do u think horizon can change in a single mission.

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/62297main_neil_on_moon_full.jpg

Unless they changed the direction of the spotlight ; Or dramatic change in height of the camera (using studio crane) to see that large near horizon object to come nearer.

Thanks for the inspiration Janus58, now its confirmed, Apollo missions were Faked. So lets chant it once more.

"IF WE CANT MAKE THEN LETS FAKE IT"

 

[Nickelodeon]

Guys, Do u think horizon can change in a single mission.

What do you mean?

 

[Singularity]

What do you mean?

Look at the shiny object behind the astronot, and the change in the distance between it and the horizon in both of these Apollo 11 pics.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Look at the wider pic, u will notice that the top part of the Lander leg intersects with the horizon (in the pic), this shows that the camera was at very high altitude, ie. taller than the astronots and that leg.

 

[Jeremyhfht]

...DH, not only did you completely and entirely _MISS_ my point...but you're correcting me on the entirely wrong premise.

You missed key words I used, such as "usually" when referring to multiple subdomains.

Oh, btw, notice how marsrovers.jpl.nasa completely lacks the "www."? Yeah. you've just proven one of my points. The domain name is jpl.nasa.gov. The sub domain is mars rover.

Try and tack on the "www." and see if it works. Here's a hint: it wont.

But this isn't even my point. My point was, those websites (hq.nasa, etc) are fake, so images you get from them are doctored up (obviously). Please actually do the whois lookup before spewing further aggressive ignorance.

 

[Janus58]

Do u think that the edges of Moon in this pic should be darker ?

Is the sunlight coming from behind the moon? No.
Does the viewing angle and the angle of the sunlight vary from each other significantly? No.

Here the sun is almost directly behind the camera. The sightlines and the Sun's rays are almost exactly parallel to each other.

Again, this is no way duplicates the conditions of the other photo.

Quit beating a dead horse.

 

[Read-Only]

People, please!!!! Can't you see by now that this Singularity individual is playing all of you for fools? (I suppose the common-forum-speak would be "Troll" becasue that's what he/she/it really is.)

No one over the age of nine could possibly believe the garbage that he/she/it keeps posting in this (and other) threads. All we've been doing is feeding the idiot troll and providing it with encouragement. I sincerely suggest that everyone (myself included) totally ignore the troll and eventually it will go back under the rock from whence it came - and where it rightfully belongs!!

 

[Singularity]

People, please!!!! Can't you see by now that this Singularity individual is playing all of you for fools? (I suppose the common-forum-speak would be "Troll" becasue that's what he/she/it really is.)

No one over the age of nine could possibly believe the garbage that he/she/it keeps posting in this (and other) threads. All we've been doing is feeding the idiot troll and providing it with encouragement. I sincerely suggest that everyone (myself included) totally ignore the troll and eventually it will go back under the rock from whence it came - and where it rightfully belongs!!

The more i am attacked personally, the more confidence i get in your incompetence about proving my points wrong.

So how much do they pay u to say these stupid things ?
Is the illuminati worried about "Super Size Me ?" I mean about my brain size.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/Doble11.JPG

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj.trio.jpg

 

[Singularity]

.... My point was, those websites (hq.nasa, etc) are fake, so images you get from them are doctored up (obviously). Please actually do the whois lookup before spewing further aggressive ignorance.

So why dont u tell us why is nasa linking to such sites ?

http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/F_Apollo_35th_Anniversary.html

Actually this Jeremyhfht is misleading u to the fact that some photos escaped their own scrutiny since all photos were faked and now its difficult to take them off the site, as that will raise more eyebrows worldwide.

 

[D H]

Jeremy, you are embarrassing yourself.

Here are the steps taken to translate "marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov" to an IP address.

1. Names are translated right to left, starting with ".gov".
2. Your computer asks the nameserver listed in your local internet configuration file to find an IP address for ".gov". This is the .gov nameserver machine.
3. Your computer asks the .gov nameserver to find an IP address for ".nasa.gov". This is the NASA nameserver machine.
4. Your computer now asks this machine to find an IP address for "jpl.nasa.gov". This is the JPL nameserver machine.
5. Finally, your computer now asks the JPL nameserver to find an IP address for "marsrover.jpl.nasa.gov".

BTW, websites do not have to start with "www". That is customary but not essential. What is essential is that the machine must recognize and accept the HTTP protocol.

Please read on how the Domain Name System works.

 

[Singularity]

Clearly NASA has good tieups with expert fakesters.

No wonder sometimes the shadows dont matchup with reality.

 

[Pete]

Hi Jeremy,
It's not possible to register a subdomain unless you own the domain. So the only people who can register ???.nasa.gov are those who own nasa.gov. Or more specifically, those who control the nameserver registered against nasa.gov.

Anyway, have you tried doing a whois lookup yourself?
Here:
The ip address of hq.nasa.gov is 198.116.63.2
According to ARIN, that address is in the range allocated to NASA. Check for yourself.

 

[Singularity]

Who cares about the stupid arguments of these skeptics,
we should focus on these two photos and try to see why they are like this, there must be a good explanation if the eagle did land on moon.

 

[Jeremyhfht]

I withdraw my former comments.

It would appear, after a lot of relooking and searching, they are "legit" in the fact that they are government websites.

On the other hand, I've discovered an entirely different issue with the websites. This one is much more puzzling. I'm going to make a new thread on the subject, and request that singularity can't post. Heh

 

[orcot]

the picture show apollo 15, I'm first wondering why the picture is in black and white when they got color camera's
annyway

... I can't seem to find the originals but their are crossmarks on the picture and the smaller left don't align with the big ones in the middle that are aligned with the small ones on the right, and neather is the distance to each other the same. Conclusion the left astronaut stands significantly higher and more to the left then the original. their are also some signs of photoshop near the left hand and other marks