Quote from gezmoor :

Not if you even know elementry physics.

Care to explain? I wouldn't mind you explaining why the crosshairs are behind objects, why theres shadows that point to different directons and why the astraunauts(failspell) are lit up really well yet they're in the shadow of the little space ship thing...

Quote from evilpimp :

Care to explain? I wouldn't mind you explaining why the crosshairs are behind objects, why theres shadows that point to different directons and why the astraunauts(failspell) are lit up really well yet they're in the shadow of the little space ship thing...

Not sure if it's the same footage, but I remember something about the moon conspiracy thing.

The theorists had doctored a piece of the film to suit their needs.

Might have been something else completely unrelated though.

evil pimp all of those have been explained (apart from the crosshairs. if you link an image to that photo(s) then we can maybe guide you.

Multiple light sources
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wym04J_3Ls0
Flag moving
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCPIchZDSr4

Moonwaling
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE4w2MIYhC4

I am not saying Mythbusters is ultimatly right, but this does show how it all could happen. Tbh we did go to the moon and people that think not are far far too sceptical.

let's stick to more lunar facts and not to evidence that the landing might be fake.

the same side of the moon always faces us, we rotate together.

The Tibetan dead ancestors live on the moon.

Quote from rich uk :

evil pimp all of those have been explained (apart from the crosshairs. if you link an image to that photo(s) then we can maybe guide you.

Multiple light sources
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wym04J_3Ls0
Flag moving
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCPIchZDSr4

Moonwaling
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE4w2MIYhC4

I am not saying Mythbusters is ultimatly right, but this does show how it all could happen. Tbh we did go to the moon and people that think not are far far too sceptical.

Fair enough, thanks for that.

Here are the pics for the crosshairs.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_lRr7 ... _0h8g/s320/crosshair6.JPG

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_lRr7 ... tZwCM/s320/crosshair2.JPG

Quote from evilpimp :

Fair enough, thanks for that.

Here are the pics for the crosshairs.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_lRr7 ... _0h8g/s320/crosshair6.JPG

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_lRr7 ... tZwCM/s320/crosshair2.JPG

It's because the crosshairs are in front of an object that is white or very bright. The film is so 'overexposed' that it covers up (or bleeds over, as Jibber said below me) the tiny black lines of the crosshairs.

Quote :

The cross hairs are called reseau-lines and were produced by a glass plate within the camera, between the lens and film. They cause a black cross on the film where they block the light from reaching the film directly below them. If, however, you are taking a photograph of a really bright white object, the white, over-exposed part of the film 'bleeds' into other parts of the film. This is particularly the case if the adjacent part of the film is black. This is what is happening where the thin reseau-lines meet a bright, reflective part of the photograph and is not unusual. It happens on photographs with reseau-lines on Earth too.

It occurs in a number of the Apollo photographs, but you only see it where the reseau-lines seem to disappear behind a bright white part. You never see it happening anywhere else.

I was doing a big project for school a few years ago about the moon landing. If you use common sense and do some research on both sides (moon hoax / anti-moon hoax), you'll end up with the conclusion that the moon landing must have been real. Unless you're a little paranoid maybe...

Fair enough, I believe the moon landing indeed happened xD.

Took you that long?

I could tell at first sight that the crosshairs where behind the object because of the white objects.

Yeah I figured too but I wasnt sure how that could make sense. The crosshairs are black and on the lens, why would something white far behind make it dissapear? I figured maybe the glare or because it was too shiny...

Fact: Santa Claus lives on the moon.
The guys in the lunar module told Houston this: "Ground Control, be advised, there really is a Santa Claus."

Santa Claus was the codeword for alien intelligence or UFO's on the surface of the moon. Many broadcasts containing this codeword were captured by amateur radio operators.

Just a point about the crosshairs:

Just say that the conspiracy theorists are correct and the crosshairs really were behind the objects - what does that mean exactly? Either one of two things:

1) The crosshairs are on the camera lens - therefore the flag and equipment that is supposedly in front of them must be teeny weeny little models inside the camera...

OR

2) If the crosshairs are not on the lens then they must be huge 20ft-high objects sticking out of the "lunar" surface like grave headstones. Now if I wanted to fake a moon landing, I wouldnt place huge alien-looking black headstones in the background of the photos...

Or simply a computer edit that failed and they ended up putting the crosshairs behind some objects by accident?

Ok, who walked up to Buzz and called him a liar....click

There was never a Man on the moon. he was morphed into it the whole time.

Loool xD Nice find Mackie :P

DYK The moon is 30% glass material on exterior which makes it highly reflective.

@Tristan.. all the cheese is on the inside! .. btw, It's not American Cheese as most suspected..

Quote from XCNuse :

DYK The moon is 30% glass material on exterior which makes it highly reflective.

@Tristan.. all the cheese is on the inside! .. btw, It's not American Cheese as most suspected..

i think its cheese from netherlands

I heard it was Stilton.

C'est le fromage de France. Le fromage de France a un exellent aroma de fromage

Merde Du Fromage!!!

Quote from rich uk :

I heard it was Stilton.

I hear it's only good with crackers

lol....

lol at this whole thread...


good news from canada

i can also see the moon from my balconi !