What are you thinking about this apollo 17 shits

Also, the bottom image seems like the camera is higher in position than the upper image.

Here's an example of how hard it is to tell how far away shit is with no atmosphere context clues.

youtube.com/watch?v=5kcUwZ8rRjI

The arrows show just how different the placement of the camera is in each photo from each other. Since those hills are so far away, this is a great deal of distance between the two camera locations.

At first I thought of this. but please look this page ; aulis.com/exposing_apollo2.htm it is explaining angle problem

looks like its just zoomed in you faggot

Only it isn't explaining it. Everything changed perspective in those images. This is what happens when people who do not have very good ability to discern two similar things from each other.

Nature has a way of killing those types of people off. Only now we've circumvented that mechanism. Now those people are able to easily gain food and reproduce with impunity. Then we end up with threads like this and blogs like what you posted.

Even in the 2 original images it shows the camera man to be in two wildly different locations and in both images you can see where the lander is. You can even see the dips in the ground near the lander in both images.

>zooming in lets me see around objects
What the fuck are you even doing on this board, faggot?

why are the mountain sizes the same in both photographs? if there is a mile difference between them

Okay, now you are just trolling.

yes :) it is just joke. but im still thinking it is almost same angle photos. im preparing something. just wait

>im still thinking it is almost same angle photos

Because when you compare it to very far distant objects that is true. The photos are only taken like 200 meters from each other? That's nothing compared to the many kilometers the distant objects are.

>aulis.com/exposing_apollo2.htm
>he thinks they are moving the landing module and not the camera and says it is all faked because "you can't move the landing module" and can't into angles or the fact you can move a camera

it is bottom image. what is reflecting from astronaut?

source : hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20439HR.jpg

panorama : keithlaney.net/Ahiddenmission/a17pan1230624HR.jpg

So, OP, can you explain to me why the entire case for doubting the moon landings is made by obsessing over some photos? And obsessing over them in ways that could easily be resolved with just the slightest bit of mental effort put into them?

i want solve this problems with you. example look this photo. where is the fucking astronaut backpack? why i cant see backpack.

source : spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo17/hires/as17-141-21608.jpg

Are you telling me you can't see the shadow of his backpack? He's facing the other astronaut and taking a picture you retard. Do you really think that if they were faking this shit they would have done such an extremely terrible job?

Looks like another astronaut, the one taking the picture. He isn't extremely large and far away, he's human-sized and standing on a little hill.

Probably on his back.

Anyway, the thing that bugs me the most with moon landing conspiracists is how little awareness of the larger scheme they have. So, here, let's take this example. What is the fucking point? That they literally managed to make these insanely convincing photos but forgot to put a backpack on this one guy? "Dude, you don't need to wear your backpack for the next scene, you'll only be visible on a reflection, and nobody will ever look this closely at these pictures we are faking right now!" That's just fucking ridiculous, as are by far most other arguments. It's just a fucking reflection on a convex surface, it's really noisy and blurry, no idea whether he has his backpack on or not.

i can see backpack in the shadow. but why i can't see in body. please explain me. i want learn.

they may have used miniature models for distant shots.there may be a lack in these models. such as backpack.

That makes absolutely no fucking sense.

Because his body is facing you and the backpack is behind him.

Or, OR, the photos were really taken by a guy on the Moon during a landing mission.

and their cars are moving without a trace

source : spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo15/hires/as15-88-11901.jpg

one more for trace issue.

c1.staticflickr.com/1/598/21472571819_509b5062db_k.jpg

where is the wheel trace?

How do you think the lunar rover got onto the surface of the moon? It was stored folded up on the side of the LEM, then taken off and unfolded by an astronaut before being placed on the ground. On Earth it weighed 210 kg, but on the Moon it only weighed 35 kg, and could be easily lifted and unfolded by hand.

The point is, the rover didn't have to drive to get into the position it is sitting in in that photo. Maybe it got stuck out of frame and the astronauts carried it off to the side. You can see the tracks in the background from where they had just been driving.

Again I have to ask, do you really think that the people who supposedly faked these images were so inept that they fucking forgot to roll the rover around so it would show tracks in the photos?

In this one you can barely see the footprints left by the astronauts because the photo is being taken in very strong lighting and is very washed out. Look carefully next to the rover; you can just barely see the footprints they left as they disembarked the rover to take the pictures and surface samples. Considering the rover is facing the camera and thus came from the background, its tracks would be even harder to see than those footprints I mentioned.

>gain I have to ask, do you really

yes it can be for first photo. but please look second photo. it is away from module. it must be definitely driven from astronaut.

i can see astronaut footprints clearly. but where is the wheel traces? it is not strong light issue. because i can see clearly footprints.

>Again I have to ask, do you really think that the people who supposedly faked these images were so inept that they fucking forgot to roll the rover around so it would show tracks in the photos?
Not an argument.

You seem to like photos so here's some more.

These images were taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter in 2009. They clearly show the descent stage, science equipment, rovers, and tracks left by the Apollo astronauts on multiple missions over 50 years ago.

Deny these as fake all you want, but I guarantee if the Russians or ESA or China sent a Lunar orbital mapping probe to look for them, they'd find the exact same equipment and track patterns as can be seen here.

The tracks are behind the rover. The picture was taken from in front of the rover.

That wasn't my argument, it was a question. My explanation of the images in question stands.

thank you. it is great answer for this photo. im just searching great answer for my questions.

are you a slav? you speak english like a slav (terrible): no articles, barely any preposition, barely coherent.

another issue for mountain size. it is very interesting.

sources ;

1)spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo17/hires/as17-147-22527.jpg

2)spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo17/hires/as17-134-20435.jpg

Both are shot by astronaut. the first photo is taken from a lower height than second. but is it possible to pull it down enough to affect the size of the mountain so much?

>what is perspective and FOV

Learn how a camera works please.

youtube.com/watch?v=vh5kZ4uIUC0

Hard to tell from the shadows, but from the looks of the foot prints around the rover, the rover could've been standing idle for a while, with the astronauts walking and kicking dust all over the place, covering up all the tire tracks.

and attract the most attention. THE MISSING ROCK

sources;

1)hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-147-22494.jpg

2)spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo17/hires/as17-134-20435.jpg

3)hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-147-22488HR.jpg

...

yes, i found it now. thank you!

What says. It's the same shape, is on the edge of the crater visible in the first and 3rd pics, and is in the same position relative to the pair of rocks with the + on them in the 3rd pic that is also visible in the 1st.

I'm confused at what you're even trying to show here. If the Moon landings were actually a hoax, surely they'd be far more concrete and less ambiguous clues than fuzzy details in NASA photographs?

He was trying to say a certain rock was present in two photos then was nowhere to be found in the third, except It's actually in the third photo just shifted off to the right a little.

Yeah, but I meant bigger-picture. Apollo wasn't just a few spacecraft and some photos of rocks, it was a massive program that lasted many years, included many people, and involved co-ordination with and observation by many parties both inside and outside the USA.

Looking at pebbles and shadows is entirely the wrong approach to trying to "expose" it.

You're correct of course. I have no idea as per the OP's thought process but I can disprove his conjectures about the nature of the photographs we has posted.

Holy fuck there is some epic mouth breathing retard trolls ITT.

Tracks are right there in the images you posted. Literally right where your arrows are.

>mfw all the moon landing hoaxers were right all along

have you even read any of the posts in this thread

i have never cared for this controversy at all. but all those official pictures look fake as fuck. everything looks feeble, and without any purpose but display, cosplay tier.

The explanations aren't particularly convincing.

So why would China cover the fake moon landing?

what difference does some anonymous comments make over photographic evidence of fraud ?

The astronauts left their bags shit on the moon. I mean no point taking that shit home.

Look. If the moon landing was fake, I'm sure the Soviets would have said something about it.

They were part of it too because felt embarrassed america managed to dupe them into building impossible rocket that exploded 10 times.
>the capitalists lie you can't get to the moon we tried!
>CIA: *grins*

>what are you thinking about
>this apollo 17 shitsource
thinking shitsource is shit

interesting pic

>These images
what images?

Correcting Apollo sceptics is like fact-checking Trump: it's pointless cause they'll just say you're lying. By the logic of conspiracy theorists I can say Mt.Everst is a hill that is pictured in perspective to seem tall and you just fabricate all the evidence, cause i've never climbed it. Besides we do receive signals from the Apollo reflectors on the moon so these thread should just not exist on a "science" board where people are supposed to trust observation tools even when it's not their naked eye. But who am I fooling, it's pointless trying to make an argument around here

These images.

...

...

>have some doubts about the moon landings
>see this thread to perhaps see definite proof
>it is created by an idiot and proves nothing
>tfw i'm from /x/

And then people wonder why /x/ is the kind of liquid garbage that leaks on to the ground through a hole in the bin which was eroded through the cheap material by a highly toxic bullshit.

It is clearly seen from the image that both of these pictures are made from different distances. If you would've gone at least a quarter of evolutionary process, you would dig deep into NASA's archives to figure out if there are images or videos that are claimed to be made from different locations during different missions and then see if there were any overlapping similarities.

>Those lander pits though....

Compare to the positions of the pads in the first pic, notice how they don't match, and then think about perspective and how the "pits" for the more distant pads would appear closer together, not further apart, when compared to the nearer pads.

Now look at the hill at "Y", and notice how much more of it has come into view in the second picture. The two pictures were not taken from the same place at all, the lower one is from a position much closer to the hills.

The footprints and rover tracks do not match up.

The only real similarities are the distant background is of the same hills, though from nearer the hills in the second image, and there is a small crater to the left in each image. Unless you want to argue that craters are uncommon on the moon, that last detail proves nothing and the others all indicate the pictures are from different locations.

That's pretty neat, saved for whacking conspiritards with in the future. Thank you for sharing.

The object just above the center of the visor is the other astronaut. The object at the lower edge is the device on the ground in front of him.

You know, that's just wild enough that it might be true!

I like how extremely cropped that picture is, to avoid showing the ground behind the rover where the tracks might show up.

Holy fuck, are you actually this dumb? Are you gonna make a point of not seeing the back of your head if you take a fucking selfie?
How do you even solve the fucking Captcha?

But what is that supposed to prove? On the moon or on a set on the Earth, rolling the lander to that position over the same dusty ground would have left the same tracks.

Wheel track from the right rear wheel is visible, faintly, trail from left to right is pretty clearly visible in background.

See:
>tfw you're having a good day and you're reminded that people still believe the moon landing was fake

The second photo has been cropped/enlarged -- check the size of the reticules. Somebody enlarged the second photo, so relative size of the rock is meaningless. Also, see the "House Rock" video linked by some user above -- judging distance to objects outside of an atmosphere is tricky, rock may be much larger and further away than you assume.

obviously you're correct but good luck getting the internet losers here to believe it.

why would you even argue with them

Those are not boot tracks. those are wheel tracks, visually broken into two bits by the lump in front of them.

Two reasons -- it is fun, from time to tiem. Also, they are either ignorant, stupid or trolls -- If they are just ignorant, you can show them where they are wrong. If they are trolls or stupid, then maybe you can't win an argument with them becasue goalposts are infinitely shiftabe, but maybe you can help some third party reading the thread not to get caught up in their bullshit.

My experience with people who genuinly believe in hoax-stuff and flat-earth and what not is that they pride themself on "knowing the truth" and that nothing you say or do short of sending them up there to see for themself will work.
My favorites have been
>Rockets dont work in space cuz no atmo
>The radiation/muh Van Allen belts
>Kubrick, dude!!
>Earth is flat, "they" are lying, muh Freemasons and Hillary is a reptillian who had Armstrong killed

Background is actually really far away.
Unfortunately, there aren't any trees to show scales on the moon.

look this post. and scale with rock.both photos have same size same rocks but mountain size changing. please explain me

Same cause, same effect.
Rock is far away.

It troubles me that I could meet a person like OP IRL and would probably not be able to tell immediately that he's this stupid, without engaging him in some in depth conversation about something.
Like unless he's actually a basement dwelling neckbeard he can probably socialize and converse with people in a mostly normal way, and you'd never know he spends multiple hours posting grainy moon landing photos on Veeky Forums and asking about tiny, inconsequential details in broken English.

This thread has made me legitimately paranoid that I may know and regularly interact with people like this and not realize it.

I learned that a while ago. Did you know, that you could have always been talking to people who regularly fuck their dog? Because you could be talking to people who regularly fuck their dog.

Most people have all kinds of secrets. Some you would really rather not know about. Like dog diddling. At least now you realize this.

>Because you could be talking to people who regularly fuck their dog.
I did not need or ask for this redpill.

>>CIA: *grins*
are you fucking 12 and from deviantart?