HoneyBBare (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)

Kinetic force resulting from being placed running through the fabric with nowhere to go but to ripple the material. Lack of gravity equivalent to Earth resulting in less obstacle to its flow so last longer than it would on earth.

Cosmored (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)

The evidence that the moon missions were faked is crushing. There's a partial summary of it on a science forum. To see it google "The Naked Scientists". In the "New Theories" section of the forum there's a thread entitled "Did We Land on the Moon?". The summary is on page 15. It's the 7th post from the top.

ejcorilloful (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)

guys have you ever heard the conspiracy theory,,,,i think this mission is fake,,,why??? they said that there is no wheather on the moon but why is it that the flag is waving with the air????

fresniak (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)

(continue) if you underexpose to retain the bright details then you will loose much if not all the dark details. That's a very well known limit in photography. You're just an ignorant trying to look smarter than you are, speaking of things you know nothing about.

fresniak (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)

@musicbrv"why would it be impossible to take pictures on the moon in bright light? you simply adjust the camera setting! "This shows that you know nothing about photography. Please first learn what is a dynamic range, and then try to read again my comment and understand it. I never stated it is not possible to take pictures in very bright light. What I stated it's you can't cover all the range with photographs from darkest tones to the high-lights if you are in very bright conditions.

fresniak (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)

"This is ludicrous, if they were going to lie about some alleged hoax, why didn't they lie and say they saw stars"here it is the usual "why not.." question.First of all astronauts were really ashamed of what they were doing, but there was no choice for them, other than lying. Second if they would mention the stars, the public opinion would have demanded many more stars pictures in the next missions, and they would have been forced to find a way to do that, which obviously they didn't want to.

fresniak (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)

still on a very bright days our eyes can easily have both shadows and highlights in range..that's a well known limit in photography.So if our eyes can clearly see in bright light, do you think it would be a problem to do the same on the moon?

fresniak (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)

the moon reflects only a small percentage (around 5%) of the sun-light. If the moon was really such a bright place as you want to imply, then why the pictures from the hasseblad cameras show a very good dybamic range covering all the range from the darkest tones to the lightest ones?? IF you ever took pictures with a camera you should know that on a brighty day you will not be able to have both the shadows and the highlights in range on both film and digital cameras.

loperspest (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)

@fresniak Maybe your eyes are just better then mine, because I know what I saw, or rather didn't see. And the Sun is far brighter then any house lamp, as anyone who has walked inside after been outside knows.This is ludicrous, if they were going to lie about some alleged hoax, why didn't they lie and say they saw stars, if they were supposed to? Both Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong were veteran astronauts and Aldrin had done EVA in Earth orbit.They would know what stars in space were like.

fresniak (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)

"I have looked outside, standing away from the window so that the lit walls are in view. Stars just weren't visible."I have done the same and I could see the stars. So now who is the liar?Or maybe you are lighting your room with a 2GW lamp??