[rx]

NASA isn't trying to keep us safe from that woman, only what she could expose about NASA's previous lies--of which there are many.

In what appears to have been the same 1969 tour by Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins, the threesome gave a moon rock sample to a former Dutch Prime Minister. It was later determined to be a piece of a petrified tree.

Rather than exposing the moon once to have been populated by trees, it shows NASA instead to have been lying their butts off about the fact that the aforementioned threesome actually never went to the moon.

After spending $6B, can we imagine if people in 1969 would have been looking at the following (verified to have been taken by one of the Hasselblad cameras)? Those specially modified cameras cost over $900,000 apiece. Too bad we only saw imagery that was projected onto a white sheet then aimed at by other video cameras, then rebroadcast by the big three in the grainiest, most overexposed black and white. (That is, there were no direct feeds.)

Note the quality of the craftsmanship, or lack thereof.

Perhaps you'll note the lack of stars in the black background.

Then notice the double shadows from different directions. Bzzzzt!

Or, how about the hot spots from the lighting behind the astroNOT's head?

Our government has been lying to us and has not stopped, but rather, grown ever bolder and more audacious!

[FreedomStar3028]

I’ve seen better homeless tweaker shelters.

[nickcarraway]

If they didn’t go to the moon, then why didn’t the Russians them?

[StolarStorm]

Oh for God’s sake. There were many so many people involved (like my father...) that a “fake” could never have succeeded. It happened. It was an amazing achievement of the American spirit.

[Ultra Sonic 007]

It was easier to go to the Moon than it was to fake it.

https://youtu.be/_loUDS4c3Cs

[DennisR]

Whoopie? Is that you???

[IronJack]

Have your psychiatrist do a med check, okay?

[coloradan]

I will probably regret doing this, but:
1. The fact the craft looks low quality doesn’t prove it didn’t exist or didn’t fly.
2. Stars are very much dimmer than a sunlit scene; to see stars in a photograph requires seconds if not minutes of exposure, while day-lit scenes can be captured in 1/500 of a second or less.
3. As a result of perspective, the shadows of objects go in different directions, which is conspicuous in fisheye lens photographs. Notice that the shadow of the photographer in this picture is almost directly straight up, but the shadow of the distant surfer is clearly to his right. https://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/2361078034/Phogo_fisheye.JPG
4. It is a well-known effect that one sees a halo or brightness around the shadow of one’s head, because, in that direction, the shadows of objects are obscured by the objects casting the shadows. http://www.spaceweather.com/swpod2005/07dec05/Zinkova.jpg?PHPSESSID=1hplpeaa73r4f2vs3f7shaqb63
5. The Earth is a sphere, so, at any significant distance, it will look like a circle. But, how much of the surface of Earth that circle covers depends on one’s distance; it only covers half of the surface at infinite viewing distance. One certainly can’t see both South and North America from the altitude of a jet plane. Indeed, the Space Station is only a few hundred miles up, which is not nearly far enough to see all of North America and South America in the same scene.

As I say, I hope I don’t regret this.

[Hot Tabasco]

I miss Michael Rivero!

[Chode]

that's exactly what the Russians said... wait, no they didn't