You haven’t convinced me of anything if only that you have stated your opinion on a matter which you know very little about. I am sure those you call Astro-nots would have a great deal to say about your claims. The little information you have provided in now way indicates that the moon landings were faked or even worse, a figment of the imagination to the masses. I really believe you should research your vlaims a little more before bringing this type of information here!

Well SOC, I am glad that someone finally started to talk about tangibles. Although, have heard it
all before and been there and done that ^_^

But, like I said you did what others, for whatever reason, didn’t do. Lets begin with the first
photo of Neil the Astro-not going down the steps: All I can say about this pic is to compare it to
the still photos and wonder how was is that a still photo is absolutely perfect yet the film is
absolute sh*t.

Did you know that the still pic of Armstrong (your second pic) is the ONLY photo of the
supposed 1st man on the MOON? Now, THAT is weird in itself. Also why is it that the flag is
fluttering “on the Moon”? And why is the shade side of the Lander so damn bright, and you just
happen to see the US flag perfectly “in the shade”. Well, I’ll tell you why. The professional
photographer was using Reflectors, like in studios, and even managed to light up the back side of
that post in front of the “fluttering” flag.

These have been discussed on the hundreds of web sites already.

In one of the links in the UK link titled “In the shadow,” there is a pic of an Astro-not coming
down the Lander. The guy talks about light reflection and stuff. There is just 7% reflection on
the Moon yet the pic is damn good. And, everything “patriotic” like the flag or the word “United
States” is always bright and visible.

Now, in this pic I just have a point to make which no one else has. If in fact the reflection has lit
up the “dark side” then why is there shade where the gold foil has kinks? Wouldn’t the
“reflection” be uniform?

As well, this pic is discussed in the site I attached before, and a close up of the right boot shows
a “single source” light reflection.

I just wanted to take one or two points from the links SOC have shown. The argument in those
links are rather stupid. I have seen this kind of “proof” before, and it works on a certain kind of
people, and only on a certain kind of people. The “proof” is stupid and illogical. It really dos not
make sense, IF it is looked at objectively. Which I don’t think is going to happen. In fact, that
UK site puts forth one of the most stupid arguments ever.

As for the Hubble and all that Jazz, there are hundreds of Earth-based telescopes, and the
“landing” sites are very accessible (visually) from Earth. Yet not even one single pic of the stuff
supposedly left behind.

Hell, I went to Google Moon, and those comedians turn the Moon into Swiss Cheese when you try to focus on the landing sites. Doesn’t anyone with common sense wonder why is it we can get within enough distance to these supposed landing sites “not” to any details, then suddenly “Swiss Cheese”??????

I guess they were told by the government to keep the “second” biggest hoax of century under wraps or else.

http://moon.google.com/

Wow! Everything I have ever believed about space exploration has gone down the crapper! I don’t know what to think anymore! :diablo: :diablo:

I’ve always loved the Jaguar and the pictures you have taken are amazing. However, I also have to command you for those you have taken of the Typhoon! Well done! Cheers, 🙂

Incredible shots, love them all!

7. Le Bourget

This is my current one. I’ve had it set with this picture for a while now and I am thinkign of changing it although I have yet to find one to replace it with. 🙂

I am waiting for the budgetary axe to fall on the F-35. with more money needed to pay for the war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan means less money to spend on development of the F-35. I could see this project taking a sharp turn for the worse.