Possible proof of aliens.

Ok I have some knew enlightening evididence that we know of aliens....... Theres a great deal of people who think the moon landings were fake cause of photo manipulation.... Heres ONE MAJOR FACTOID...

Man sees 3 people editing the moon landing photos... ask them what they are doing... they make a joke about cutting the photo, then tell him they are painting over them...

When asked why later... their statement was 'we needed to black out the stars...'

k look at it this way...onboard the ISS the other day... they were asked something from some kids about how the stars looked... well guess what they said 'we are in the sunlight so we cannot see the stars unless we focus into the dark for 10-20 minutes...'

now correct me if im wrong, but didnt we land on the LIGHT side of the moon? which would mean there whould be virtually no stars visible to paint out.... not to mention if there were stars in photos it would REQUIRE long exposure film and cameras.... something they didnt have to my knowledge.


So either the moon landings were faked, or they were painting over ET objects.... i dont buy the whole 'painting over the stars so it wont confues the viewer' thing... perhaps its a slip and they didnt cover there steps when they figured out what they were going to say about it...

it is a fact however that they did paint over 'stars' so they say.... wether it was stars or not i dont know.

Isn't it a bit too far to say it is a fact Doesn't matter to me, but some-one says they painted over the original things, and then a person sees it, and they say it is a joke and stuff, I think it's funny

Would be less funny if it is the truth, but let's not think that, let's not believe one persons saying something which doesn't makes sense looking at what he says happened

But hey that's my oppinion.

someone took the show "Conspiracies" too seriously thats all

I saw that episode as well. What does it really matter if it was faked anyway?

Originally posted by MrJingles
I saw that episode as well. What does it really matter if it was faked anyway?

If by "it was faked" you mean the moon landing...well I'll tell you why it matters to me. We all know the government withholds information from it's citizens and spins stories to it's benefit...but if the moon landing was faked...it was the most overt, fabricated, PR, wholesale lie supported by government money and organizations that has happened in my life time. IT wasn't necessary to make that up, they weren't covering up a mistake...they CREATED this story and if it is in fact a myth...I want to know what it accomplished. Did it make American's feel superior? Did it make the American workers more productive? Did it convince other goverments that we had more advanced technology and thus make us a greater militaristic threat to subdue other nations. WHY...that's what I want to know. Not if. If it was a fake...WHY was it done?

Ugh. More moon landing crap. Some of these conspiracy theorists are so gullible they'll believe anything that goes against the grain, even ignoring scientific fact.

First of all, go here:
www.badastronomy.com...

A nice scientific, 3rd party evaluation of the moon landing hoax theories, that can easily pick apart the childish conspiracy nonsense about the landing using ACTUAL SCIENCE and not just spouting garbage.

And just for your convenience, I'll go ahead and paste the part about the "stars".

Bad: The first bit of actual evidence brought up is the lack of stars in the pictures taken by the Apollo astronauts from the surface of the Moon. Without air, the sky is black, so where are the stars?

Good: The stars are there! They're just too faint to be seen.

This is usually the first thing HBs talk about when discussing the Hoax. That amazes me, as it's the silliest assertion they make. However, it appeals to our common sense: when the sky is black here on Earth, we see stars. Therefore we should see them from the Moon as well.

I'll say this here now, and return to it many times: the Moon is not the Earth. Conditions there are weird, and our common sense is likely to fail us.

The Moon's surface is airless. On Earth, our thick atmosphere scatters sunlight, spreading it out over the whole sky. That's why the sky is bright during the day. Without sunlight, the air is dark at night, allowing us to see stars.

On the Moon, the lack of air means that the sky is dark. Even when the Sun is high off the horizon during full day, the sky near it will be black. If you were standing on the Moon, you would indeed see stars, even during the day.

So why aren't they in the Apollo pictures? Pretend for a moment you are an astronaut on the surface of the Moon. You want to take a picture of your fellow space traveler. The Sun is low off the horizon, since all the lunar landings were done at local morning. How do you set your camera? The lunar landscape is brightly lit by the Sun, of course, and your friend is wearing a white spacesuit also brilliantly lit by the Sun. To take a picture of a bright object with a bright background, you need to set the exposure time to be fast, and close down the aperture setting too; that's like the pupil in your eye constricting to let less light in when you walk outside on a sunny day.

So the picture you take is set for bright objects. Stars are faint objects! In the fast exposure, they simply do not have time to register on the film. It has nothing to do with the sky being black or the lack of air, it's just a matter of exposure time. If you were to go outside here on Earth on the darkest night imaginable and take a picture with the exact same camera settings the astronauts used, you won't see any stars!

It's that simple. Remember, this the usually the first and strongest argument the HBs use, and it was that easy to show wrong. Their arguments get worse from here.

Ummm, I didnt read any further than the light side of the moon. You mean the near side of the moon first of all. Second of all, the near side of the moon is dark sometimes as well. Third of all, you could see stars on either side of the moon......

Originally posted by eXtenz
it is a fact however that they did paint over 'stars' so they say.... wether it was stars or not i dont know.

What is this crap about "it's a fact"?? It's no more a "fact" that any other brain dead conspiracy theory. Show me one thread of proof or even evidence aside from your good word that this was ever "painted over".
And where, pray, did you hear of this?

no no, im not saying it was faked landing....

what im saying is, if they landed on the light side of the moon, unless they had long exposure film and cameras... they would not have captured stars on film.... so why was there a need to paint black over the stars like nasa claims they had to do?

maybe there was some UFO activity going on is all im suggesting...

honestly i dont really know, nor care if the landing was faked, i just wanna know why they had to paint black over stars which wouldnt have shown up in film like they said they didnt, unless they used long exposure film..... its like photographing stars at night with a camera, theres a 1/1000 chance of actually getting one star show up on film.... because the time for the film to process the light isnt there in normal cameras, need long exposure times for it to do that...

Originally posted by eXtenz
no no, im not saying it was faked landing....

what im saying is, if they landed on the light side of the moon, unless they had long exposure film and cameras... they would not have captured stars on film.... so why was there a need to paint black over the stars like nasa claims they had to do?

maybe there was some UFO activity going on is all im suggesting...

honestly i dont really know, nor care if the landing was faked, i just wanna know why they had to paint black over stars which wouldnt have shown up in film like they said they didnt, unless they used long exposure film..... its like photographing stars at night with a camera, theres a 1/1000 chance of actually getting one star show up on film.... because the time for the film to process the light isnt there in normal cameras, need long exposure times for it to do that...

But where has NASA admitted to blacking out the stars? If they admitted to it publicly, or if it's supposed to be a known fact, there should be some documentation of them doing that somewhere right?

Where did you hear that NASA did this? Or admitted to doing it?

Nothing against you, but it sounds like a story some one came up with to make NASA look bad.

Anyone anywhere can say "There was a guy in NASA who saw people blacking out stars and asked why and they said X" and make it sound like it's known fact. But I have never heard anything about this. Do you have a link?