We want to share an important update with our Betfair Community users.
Over the coming months, the Betfair Community platform will be winding down. The final active day for the platform will be December 21st. From December 22nd, users will no longer be able to access the platform.
Your discussions, insights, engagement, and, most importantly, feedback have helped shape the platform and guided innovation. Your feedback continues to be important to us, and we will continue to listen via our dedicated feedback channels, as well as through product testing and innovations.
To share your feedback and experience, visit: https://support.betfair.com/app/home
|
By:
Has anyone seen the pictures that NASA published, where it was noticed that they had doctored them? The crosshairs on the camera lens disappear behind some objects in the foreground - which is impossible!
|
|
By:
I'll happily have a look at that Wedged, although as a starting point retoucing photos is commonplace - it would be more remarkabe if they publishem them all without retouching.
Do you have a link? |
|
By:
someone posted this
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html |
|
By:
http://pseudoastro.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/sibrel_crosshair.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_lRr7B9t07eI/SK_MYYovDNI/AAAAAAAAAGs/uh3-2k_0h8g/s1600-h/crosshair6.JPG Two examples there. The crosshair is etched onto the camera lens to help calcualte distances etc at a later date, but it seems to have tripped them up after they have super imposed objects into the frame. |
|
By:
my advice would be to get another hobby
|
|
By:
Looking at the first, why are there two supposed crosshairs? Does the site give the original source for the photos?
|
|
By:
http://thewebfairy.com/moon_files/nasa9.gif
|
|
By:
And for both, aren't the crosshairs normally in the middle of shot?
|
|
By:
That last one has crosses all over the shop!
|
|
By:
definitely. i had some doubts but if you watched these conspiracy theories being ripped apart piece by piece then you would change your mind.
some of the theories border on fanatsy but if you tell a mistruth often enough alot of people will believe it. the computer power was very limited but each computer had a set task and was unable to do anything else. modern day computers probably only have so much power due to the advances made by nasa. some of the best minds in the world worked towards putting men on the moon and i think it was costing roughly 5% of americas gdp. that might be wrong but i think i read that. tens of thousands of some of the brightest people worked for a decade with a massive, almost unlimited budget. in that context, almost anything is possible. the fact is that the american public and politicians became very uneasy spending such huge amounts of money on the space programme, hence why nobody has been to the moon since 1972. it was a great achievement by man, and its a shame that so many people doubt that it happened. if nothing else, the technological advances made helped make modern life what it is. |
|
By:
good summary John especially about how its a pity many cannot acknowledge one (if not the) of the greatest achievments by human kind
|
|
By:
I understand that most calculations were done by slide-rule - computers didn't invent angles, nor mathematics.
|
|
By:
John do you believe in WMDs still
;) ;) The TV may tear apart the conspiracy theorists but they have free rein. On the net they dont |
|
By:
As for the photos - well, ffs.
|
|
By:
I doubt very much that's true lisa. Calculators were around at the time.
|
|
By:
Over the past few years I have been in constant debate with several members of the 'Bad Astronomy' website and Apollo believers who visit this site. Bad Astronomy is a website that is a general meeting place for people who think that they can explain the hoax theories concerning the Apollo program and the site goes into detail on other anomalies that appear on space footage. During my time debating on the site, I was issued several challenges by sceptics who said that if I could show 'official NASA footage' showing certain anomalies, then that evidence MAY make them think that something is definitely amiss with the NASA Apollo footage. Needless to say, as at the time of writing, none of them have come forward and changed their stance.
|
|
By:
?
|
|
By:
well...quite!
|
|
By:
We'll know either way when a team made up of several countries goes to the moon in the future, as there will be debris (launch platform, cameras, flags) and machines (the rover) left all over the moon's surface if they landed.
|
|
By:
'left all over the moons surface' ?
I think the moon is a little bigger than that depicted on the Clangers |
|
By:
In addition to the stuff that's already there.
|
|
By:
Gene Hackman 29 Dec 13:17
BonViv 29 Dec 13:13 Iwantyourmoney Putting smiley faces doesn't help your case as it add's **sexuality to the "nutjob con theorist" monicker i'm afraid And replying with such answers,by bringing **sexuality into a man on the moon thread,doesn't dispel the suspicion that you lean firmly to the right wingers "believe every bit of sh1te you are told" type. Brilliant! Oh the irony of "believing what is written" |
|
By:
lol madsimon
|
|
By:
BonViv
Brilliant! Oh the irony of "believing what is written" ;) ;) |
|
By:
A slide rule went to the moon - worth Googling just how important they were in the space programme Sparky
|
|
By:
madsimon 29 Dec 14:09
'left all over the moons surface' ? I think the moon is a little bigger than that depicted on the Clangers or button moon? |
|
By:
Fair enough!
|
|
By:
madsimon 29 Dec 14:09
'left all over the moons surface' ? I think the moon is a little bigger than that depicted on the Clangers You seem to be trying to belittle my statement for some reason? Yes, numerous objects are said to be strewn over the moon surface if they have indeed been. They know exactly which grid they landed in (it was very deliberate), so they can re-visit and find them if they so wish. |
|
By:
to pick up a few things here.
it was hardly "without incident". apollo 11 was within a few seconds of disaster. armstrong had to land manually as the computer was taking them into a crater. this meant more fuel was burned that was planned. i think they had less than 10 seconds worth of fuel left. apollo 13 was hardly without incident. the space shuttle has roughly a 2% disaster rate (2 out of roughly 100). equate that to the apollo missions, which have a smaller sample rate. with even a 4% disaster rate, there is a very high chance that all 8 would come back. the "breeze" - no wind doesnt mean things cant move. the flag pole had to be twisted into the ground. the twisting motion made the flag sway. the shadows - the moon surface is very uneven, therefore shadows run in odd looking directions. this happens on earth aswell. the astronaunts were visible in the darkness behind the lander due to light being reflected up off the moon. thats how light works. whether on earth or anywhere else. there were no stars in the sky as the camera, like a human eye, cant cope well with extremes of light. the bright surface of the moon - the incredible dark of space - thats ok. but when you add bright stars into that dark, the camera, just like your eye, couldnt cope. next time you are at a floodlit football game, on a clear night, look up past the floodlights and see how hard it is to see a star. if you have doubts, look out for mythbuster moon special, or look up something similar on youtube. |
|
By:
wmds?
i am not a conspiracy theorist. i take things as i find them, in each individual case. when it comes to moon photos, i am more likely to believe professional photographers than some hick in a caravan park saying "that shadow shouldt run like that" |
|
By:
One of the biggest debates between hoax theorists and sceptics concerns the non appearance of stars from the surface of the Moon. If the objects in the sky that appear in the film to the left from the Apollo 15 Mission are not stars what are they? We can rule out marks on the lens of the camera or in the film because these objects appear on various parts of each shot and not just in one place.
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html |
|
By:
Doesn't the site name offer you any clue?
|
|
By:
Let me help. The site producers are also responsible for:
www.gullible-fckwits.co.uk |
|
By:
I think that site is owned by Nasa
|
|
By:
You're actually embarrassing.
I thought, after years of reading some of the guff posted on here, I was immune. I'm not. |
|
By:
I suspect you believed the film Schindler's List to be true depiction
:0 :0 |
|
By:
Did the USA stole the enigma machine?
;) ;) |
|
By:
Is that the one where it isn't actually the Titanic that slams into the twin towers; it's actually JFK flying a white Fiat?
|
|
By:
filmed in studio (nap)
|
|
By:
go to the Science Museum - take a look at the lunar landing capsule thingy and think how could that thing have made it to the moon and back? I can't have it.
|