I am on the fence regarding the truth behind the space program.
Which one? Apollo was a different program from Gemini, which is in turn a different program from Voyager, Huygens-Cassini, etc. Are you on the fence regarding them all?
No idea of the validity of any of them!
... suggested that the foreground was lit artificially on earth, and the night sky continued to move as normal in the black sky. That's it! I saw something that got my attention, now I'm trying to prove it true or False.
For this to be the case, the astronauts would have to be out in the open, (WHY?) with a lit foreground, and the night sky of Earth behind them. Yet, on the thousands of Apollo photographs, not a hint of - rain, wind, snow, or any other atmospheric disturbance. Not one. How likely is it that none of these (supposedly) staged events on Earth were disturbed by the weather? I've got hundreds of pics of me on holiday or inthe garden. Not a hint of snow, rain, avalanche or space ships. What's your point? If there's no evidence of weather were they indoors? or was the weather simply favourable?
Consider when the lunar EVAs took place. At these times, was there any one place on Earth that could have been the site of this staged filming, or would there have to have been multiple sites? Yeah!!! you've obviously not looked into it have you? Beliber!! lol
etc
indeed
etc
indeed.
If you just add stuff within the quote without SOMETHING to differentiate it from what I wrote, it makes it kinda difficult to follow. I've underlined what I see as your text.
YOU suggested "that the foreground was lit artificially on earth, and the night sky continued to move as normal in the black sky. " yet you ask me why this would have to be done out in the open. If the moon landings WERE filmed in this way, how would the night sky have been visible from an interior set?
My point was that, if this were done outdoors, as you suggest, it would have been nigh on impossible to achieve.
Yes, I have not looked into the timings of the EVAs vs a single location on Earth where they could have been filming at night, because I've seen no reason to. You're the one questioning the validity of it, not me.
Sorry, i don't know how to achieve what the rest of you do! I don't know how to isolate text and repost it.
There's a selection of icons above the reply box. The standard Bold, Italic, Underline and Strikethrough are the first four. If placing text within the quote tags, it helps to use one of these, as I'm doing here
I'm not suggesting anything other than the ability to inquire and hypothesise. I don't know if the image are real or fake. I don't even know if I'm real, but that's another matter entirely.
Can you prove to me the images are real, or it is simply a belief?
As I said earlier, it's all or nothing. For the moon missions to have occurred as the records state, if only ONE was taken on the Moon, then men were on the Moon.
I really don't think picking at two photos out of
thousands is going to get you anywhere.
There's a wealth of evidence to support the missions as per the 'official' record, along with third-party confirmations. When all of this is considered in totality, there's really no reason to believe/propose that a couple of photos may have been falsified.
Start at the beginning. Look at all the assembly/design/testing photos in the official record. Really LOOK at them, at all the technicians in their white lab coats, at the facilities around them, at the context. If the missions were being faked for propaganda, would all this have been faked too? Think about it.
Move on from there to matters such as the Saturn V. Nobody, but NOBODY can doubt that these things were real. They shook the Earth for miles around on take-off, so there can be no thoughts that they were illusions. Since the Saturn V took off, where did it go? You can't land one of these things, and it's kinda difficult to bring it back down to Earth without someone (such as the Russians) noticing....
C'mon, sit down, get away from these two photos, and really LOOK at the big picture.
