Ain't Photoshop Grand?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Denny Crane

It's not even loaded!
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
73,117
Likes
10,950
Points
113
Lookie, NASA photoshopped this image of the moon to show the lunar buggy and its tracks (Apollo 17).

9c5d34790cf90114f80e6a706700530c.jpg
 
Totally shopped. Don't you think it's a little suspicious that CS5 comes out with a "Moon landing footprints" filter and several month's later we have "evidence" of a moon landing?
 
So you both think we faked the moon landing or something?
 
I detect sarcasm in both posts.
 
Anyone remember this old gem? ;)
 
YOU EVER BEEN TO JAIL ON THE MOON FAMS!!!???? I HAVE 18 TIMES....... YOU AIN'T SHIT FAMS TIL YOU BEEN TO THE MOON FAMS!
 
YOU EVER BEEN TO JAIL ON THE MOON FAMS!!!???? I HAVE 18 TIMES....... YOU AIN'T SHIT FAMS TIL YOU BEEN TO THE MOON FAMS!

You meant to say you've mooned a jail? ew?
 
Somebody please STICKY the FAMS thread!
 
I've often wondered why a high powered telescope couldn't take pictures of the landing sites to confirm, once and for all, that we were on the moon.
 
I've often wondered why a high powered telescope couldn't take pictures of the landing sites to confirm, once and for all, that we were on the moon.

iirc, one of the main reasons was light and regular pollution.

However, the fact that they can shoot a laser up there, have it bounce off of a reflective surface and calculate how far away the moon seems to accomplish the same thing you're asking for.
 
Other countries' orbiters, iirc, have taken photos.
 
Other countries' orbiters, iirc, have taken photos.

If there was no proof of our landing there, other countries would trumpet that out like nobodies business.
 
I've often wondered why a high powered telescope couldn't take pictures of the landing sites to confirm, once and for all, that we were on the moon.
Without geeking it out too much, there's an equation that deals with resolution and pixellation vs. Distance. Dame basic principle as why, no matter how perfect the optics, a geosynchronous imager can't resolve past a certain size.
 
Without geeking it out too much, there's an equation that deals with resolution and pixellation vs. Distance. Dame basic principle as why, no matter how perfect the optics, a geosynchronous imager can't resolve past a certain size.

Oh c'mon, everyone knows that.
 
Hubble Telescope couldn't get a clear image of Pluto. It is about resolution.
 
It's all about the size of your "telescope".
 
It's all about the size of your "telescope".

wow...this is awesome. This is the first image that came up for "hcp telescope". Honest, do a search yourself.

img_hcp_device.jpg
 
wow...this is awesome. This is the first image that came up for "hcp telescope". Honest, do a search yourself.

img_hcp_device.jpg

Obviously, Mrs. HCP wasn't aware of Google prior to getting married.
 
This is what came up for Julius' vagina......
 

Attachments

  • Fat-ugly-goth.jpg
    Fat-ugly-goth.jpg
    11.2 KB · Views: 6
This is what came up for Julius' vagina......

touche'


btw, hcp, that means you made a good point. It's pronounced "two shay".
 
"you gay"

Congrats! That is what is called a mnemonic device! Now you'll always remember how to pronounce touche'
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top