4 ms·

I would accept the same data humans have always used for these calculations, orienting locations in space history. In this case, that would be a series of imag

I would accept the same data humans have always used for these calculations, orienting locations in space history. In this case, that would be a series of images that show the motions of the stars and telemetry data that matches it, much better from multiple angles. It's super easy to provide, super hard to fake, and as definitive as it gets. --- As for the only other ^^evidence^^ offered so far (Taniwha, thank you), unmanned rockets have already put mirrors on the moon that still work today, see Lunokhod 2. If you say the astronauts took pictures of theirs, where are the stars?

ben_w 10y ago
Every time I take a photo of the night sky, I'm lucky if I can see a single star. And that's without having the exposure levels set so that I can see the ground as more than a featureless white washed out expanse of light.
- EarthIsReal 10y ago
  The stars are our map. With them we can find our way when we get lost. Every night they shine down on us and guide our direction. How can you excuse not a single orientable picture?
  - euyyn 10y ago
    And the stars are a pretty romantic thing too! But no matter how much I repeat it, I can't convince my camera to fill my night shots with stars.
    - EarthIsReal 10y ago
      Soooooo beautiful!!!!!!!..... http://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&gws_rd=cr&q=night+sky+stars+photography http://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&gws_rd=cr&q=night+sky+... You'd think that with our history so closely connected with the stars (before urbanization limited your camera's view), someone would have made sure to take a couple of photos, even bringing additional lenses, for such a potentially interesting point of view.. Alas none
      - coldtea 10y ago
        >You'd think that with our history so closely connected with the stars (before urbanization limited your camera's view), someone would have made sure to take a couple of photos, even bringing additional lenses, for such a potentially interesting point of view.. Alas none If by "none" you mean "some", them yes. E.g: http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/51000/51486/iss028e018218_lrg.jpg http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/51000/5148... Anything else? (Even if nobody had bothered to take Earth photos with stars in them, the idea that there would be a huge conspiracy to manufacture a whole fake moon landing and tons of fake images of Earth from space, but somehow they would not know how to add stars with Photoshop to said images is beyond inane).
        EarthIsReal 10y ago
        >"some" Where?? That image looks unrelated to any men on the Moon. >somehow they would not know how to add stars with Photoshop to said images is beyond inane That level of detail would take huge computational power and software. It takes a lot more than putting bright spots on a fake picture to exactly align said dots and their intensity with our Universe, especially from multiple angles.
        ben_w 10y ago
        > That level of detail would take huge computational power and software. It takes zero computational power and zero software. We've been able to fake stars since 1650. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetarium https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetarium It would have been utterly trivial in the 60s and 70s, even without a massive planetarium, just using multiple exposures. 'cause that had been known about since the "fairies at the bottom of the garden" photos of the victorian era. Stars in the background of the Apollo footage tells you nothing, at all. The photos of the footprints, from an orbiting lunar reconnaissance probe, says more. https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/584398main_M168353795RE_25cm_AP12_area.jpg https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/584398main_M... Edit to correct spelling, fottage->footage
        coldtea 10y ago

ben_w 10y ago

Every time I take a photo of the night sky, I'm lucky if I can see a single star. And that's without having the exposure levels set so that I can see the ground as more than a featureless white washed out expanse of light.

EarthIsReal 10y ago
The stars are our map. With them we can find our way when we get lost. Every night they shine down on us and guide our direction. How can you excuse not a single orientable picture?
- euyyn 10y ago
  And the stars are a pretty romantic thing too! But no matter how much I repeat it, I can't convince my camera to fill my night shots with stars.
  - EarthIsReal 10y ago
    Soooooo beautiful!!!!!!!..... http://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&gws_rd=cr&q=night+sky+stars+photography http://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&gws_rd=cr&q=night+sky+... You'd think that with our history so closely connected with the stars (before urbanization limited your camera's view), someone would have made sure to take a couple of photos, even bringing additional lenses, for such a potentially interesting point of view.. Alas none
    - coldtea 10y ago
      >You'd think that with our history so closely connected with the stars (before urbanization limited your camera's view), someone would have made sure to take a couple of photos, even bringing additional lenses, for such a potentially interesting point of view.. Alas none If by "none" you mean "some", them yes. E.g: http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/51000/51486/iss028e018218_lrg.jpg http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/51000/5148... Anything else? (Even if nobody had bothered to take Earth photos with stars in them, the idea that there would be a huge conspiracy to manufacture a whole fake moon landing and tons of fake images of Earth from space, but somehow they would not know how to add stars with Photoshop to said images is beyond inane).
      - EarthIsReal 10y ago
        >"some" Where?? That image looks unrelated to any men on the Moon. >somehow they would not know how to add stars with Photoshop to said images is beyond inane That level of detail would take huge computational power and software. It takes a lot more than putting bright spots on a fake picture to exactly align said dots and their intensity with our Universe, especially from multiple angles.
        ben_w 10y ago
        > That level of detail would take huge computational power and software. It takes zero computational power and zero software. We've been able to fake stars since 1650. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetarium https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetarium It would have been utterly trivial in the 60s and 70s, even without a massive planetarium, just using multiple exposures. 'cause that had been known about since the "fairies at the bottom of the garden" photos of the victorian era. Stars in the background of the Apollo footage tells you nothing, at all. The photos of the footprints, from an orbiting lunar reconnaissance probe, says more. https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/584398main_M168353795RE_25cm_AP12_area.jpg https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/584398main_M... Edit to correct spelling, fottage->footage
        coldtea 10y ago