Originally posted by Soul4Raziel
This may or may not be an answer your looking for Satori,
http://www.howstuffworks.com/question188.htm
This is quite satisfactory and the person that wrote it seems to know what he's talking about. Thanks for setting me straight on that, I am now undecided about whether or not they did land on the moon, whereas before I had been lead to believe that it was possible to view the moon with uncanny detail.
There's just one other issue I find too fake to be real, and that's the fact that certain images, when superimposed on top of each other, reveal that it is a pic of exactly the same lunar landscape and yet nasa claims they are from different parts of the moon from different missions, and in certain cases, from different parts of the moon from the same mission (?). It doesn't makes sense, unless someone seriously fucked up on the identification of many of the photographs.
And one more thing people always say the lighting in the pictures is impossible due to the fact that the only source of light is the Sun. Well that is wrong there is actually another light source, THE EARTH!!! Come on people think before you commit to ideas. That is my opinion.
Actually, that whole "2 light sources" stuff because of the varying lengths and directions of shadows is nonsense that doesn't require a second light source (like the earth) to explain it. If the surface of the moon were flat it would be a different story, but it's not. I watched some tv show where a guy created the bizarre shadow effect with only one light source merely by changing the shape of the surface on which the shadow was cast. Take my word for it, it worked. I know it sounds bizarre but when you see it demonstrated, it isn't. You can do it yourself with a few figures standing on a blanket, the way the blanket sits totally affects the resulting shadows in every way. Therefore, this idea is not very credible and does not in any way cast doubt on the landings.
Another lame idea presented on that Fox show was that certain objects were placed into the pictures after the image as shot, evidenced by the fact that these objects appeared "on top" of the cross-hairs of the lens. Apparently, this was a regular thing with old film where the colour (if bright enough) would "bleed" over the fine black line. I also saw this demonstated on that show I watched and it seemed pretty likely that that's what was going on.
Satori
