was the moon landing real?

[etucker1959]

so then it isn't the voter fraud of yesterday... we know it's not a terminator ... maybe they haven't caught the fraud yet?? maybe it's a hacked computer we don't know about... or are the votes counted by price waterhouse, one by one?

shhesh... did i really need to respond to THAT!?




and, it isn't the few out of a billion votes examined... lol












how about polling booths hiding one candidates votes during the counting?

sure one was caught, but how many aren't?

who counts the ballot box in local communities anyways?

how about vote buying?

how about standing outside the polling booths and attempting to sway a voter?

you seem to claim voter suppression but both sides can do that, right? and really, if you gotta worry that you're being suppressed... why are you worried about be suppressed? Hmmmm?





(how about we can't properly vet immigrants coming into the US? )

(what kind of vetting priority is placed on someone voting without valid id (thus not really able to vote?))





(i see a ton of people standing at the dmv getting licenses and i wonder; is he or she really documented? )

(all these people have valid documentation? really? )

(and collect the government dole, are their documents real?)

(how about our fellow countrymen figuring out ways to skirt the system?)




i'm rambling... so, i'll stop.





the system is corrupt and getting worse... isn't that a fact now a days?

so when someone says there's no fraud in the election process... i call BULL SHEET!




am i wrong?




.

I don't think the system is corrupt. (unless you count what the Supreme Court and the state of Florida did to Gore in 2000) But the candidates are certainly getting worse!!!!!! Never have there EVER been 2 more unpopular candidates then Hillary and Trump!!!!

[etucker1959]

.


btw, mythbusters? LOL!



was keith carradine on as well?




tv puck tv.... maybe if Sir David Attenborough spoke on this issue...


it'd have validity...



(rogan is ok, degrasse is a pretty smart fella)




.

I like Tyson Degrasse too!!!!!! (he is one smart fellow)

[TroutOnly]

.......................SHUT UP AND FISH........................lol...............says sig................

[hookdfisherman]

I was planning on going fishing Wed to the Channel Islands!!!!! If it's turns out to be ANY good, "I'll write a full report!!!!" (By the way when was the last time you wrote a report on anything???????)

PS. We are in the GD section not bothering anyone else's report!!!! So I'll give you the famous censorship defense. If it bother's you sooooo much to read what we write about in the GD section. Don't open up that section and read something that's going to hurt your eyes!!!!! lol

PPS. I take it we struck a nerve with you some where????? Do you resemble something we wrote about???????

i bought a new phenix and shimano.

i bought a new truck to carry it in.

it already had gas.

i drove to the sea and caught a fish.

i used 65 Ppro, 40 lb mono top shot 30 seagaur flouro, a 2/0 gama.

i cast out a 'dine.

i let it pull line.

i did the tuna shuffle

i got bit.

i reeled hard.

it was a 34+ lb yellowtail from farnsworth banks. maybe it was 25 lb flouro? it was a tough fight... and getting bit with 30 is hard there...

cool?


out of LB







.
.

[Ornery Bob]

Has anyone actually addressed your question?

who wouldn't try to snap a picture of that night sky from the moon? i guess neil armstrong... no?

Lots of reasons. The first and foremost being that they didn't exactly have pockets for snapshot cameras. They weren't on vacation. These guys were heavily trained military men on a mission, not tourists. The cameras they did have were setup for taking the sorts of pictures they did take of the surface and each other. They weren't there to do astronomy and their focus was on the mission, which was the lunar surface, not the lunar sky.

Did they look up and marvel at the sky? No question. Did they take a picture of it? Obviously not. Doesn't mean anything with regards to the mission or photography on the moon.

[hookdfisherman]

Has anyone actually addressed your question?

who wouldn't try to snap a picture of that night sky from the moon? i guess neil armstrong... no?

Lots of reasons. The first and foremost being that they didn't exactly have pockets for snapshot cameras. They weren't on vacation. These guys were heavily trained military men on a mission, not tourists. The cameras they did have were setup for taking the sorts of pictures they did take of the surface and each other. They weren't there to do astronomy and their focus was on the mission, which was the lunar surface, not the lunar sky.

Did they look up and marvel at the sky? No question. Did they take a picture of it? Obviously not. Doesn't mean anything with regards to the mission or photography on the moon.

Ok but didn't someone hit a golf ball on the moon? (Maybe a later mission? But hey, bring a camera will ya? Nope, no can do...!)

Requiring a club, ball or balls in case the hitter shanks one?



And you're heading to the moon. The greatest and most spectacular view worth ever taking a picture of, and you dont even bring a camera?... ok... good answer... thanks.




.

[Lady Quagga]

Ok but didn't someone hit a golf ball on the moon? (Maybe a later mission? But hey, bring a camera will ya? Nope, no can do...!)

Requiring a club, ball or balls in case the hitter shanks one?



And you're heading to the moon. The greatest and most spectacular view worth ever taking a picture of, and you dont even bring a camera?... ok... good answer... thanks.




.

There is not a single piece of cargo (personal or otherwise, casual or otherwise) that is taken aboard a manned space mission without being thoroughly evaluated first. But hey, let's go to Methy-land and entertain the idea of someone taking a standard Kodak 110 and exposing it to the lunar environment. Any ideas what would happen to it? Anyone?

[Ornery Bob]

You're trying to Monday Morning Quarterback a moon mission from almost 50 years ago and you think this "snapshot of the sky" is some sort of big deal. It''s not, but do whatever spins your propeller.

[shinbob]

Has anyone actually addressed your question?

who wouldn't try to snap a picture of that night sky from the moon? i guess neil armstrong... no?

How about this one, which is surprisingly hard for most people to grasp -- it was NOT a night sky. It was actually broad daylight, locally on the moon. Think about it -- when would you, at local lunar time, want to land on the moon? You'd want the sun relatively high in the sky so you could see the surface, and also the Earth also high in the sky, so you can communicate to it directly. With some separation between the two so you don't get interference.

So pointing a random camera up at the stars with the wide angle lenses they typically had, you'd get the sun or the earth in every shot, or at least close enough to get lens flare. And as discussed earlier, they just didn't have the equipment to photograph stars. Why would you? Every ounce of weight is critical, do you waste your precious resources on a long lens, tripod, long lens hood, fast speed film, etc... just to get pictures of stars that you could just as easily get from the earth?

Also, the lunar day is almost 30 earth days long, so the entire time they were on the surface, the sun was in pretty much the same position. No nighttimes occurred while on the surface.

[DarkShadow]

How about this one, which is surprisingly hard for most people to grasp -- it was NOT a night sky. It was actually broad daylight, locally on the moon. Think about it -- when would you, at local lunar time, want to land on the moon? You'd want the sun relatively high in the sky so you could see the surface, and also the Earth also high in the sky, so you can communicate to it directly. With some separation between the two so you don't get interference.

So pointing a random camera up at the stars with the wide angle lenses they typically had, you'd get the sun or the earth in every shot, or at least close enough to get lens flare. And as discussed earlier, they just didn't have the equipment to photograph stars. Why would you? Every ounce of weight is critical, do you waste your precious resources on a long lens, tripod, long lens hood, fast speed film, etc... just to get pictures of stars that you could just as easily get from the earth?

Also, the lunar day is almost 30 earth days long, so the entire time they were on the surface, the sun was in pretty much the same position. No nighttimes occurred while on the surface.

Too much logic in this post.

I tend to sway towards Hookd's aimless rambling.