What do you notice about every single photo supposedly taken from the moon? That's right, there are no stars...

What do you notice about every single photo supposedly taken from the moon? That's right, there are no stars. Not a single one. If you travel just a short distance away from any city on Earth, the sky is filled with stars, you can see the milky way from anywhere on Earth. But not a single star from the moon. Not one dot. Not one solitary speck.

Go take a pic of the night sky with your cellphone, dingus. Your camera is much more advanced than the one on the moon missions

You kinda sound retarded.

"We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics." -- Neil Armstrong, August 12, 1969

The earth surface is brighter than a star and has alot more mass to the focal point of the camera would only capture the earth, kind of like natural light pollution.

Due to the exposure time

Oh man, OP just uncovered all the NASA lies. He's too intelligent, no one had thought about photoshopping stars in the moon sky. I bet photoshopping white dots is very difficult

The first thing, sorry for my bad english.
Well, the answer is "easy", is a question about light and distance. The moon is too bright because the reflection of the sun in the surface so if you wanna make a good detailed pic of the moon and other elements like the flag, the astronauts ir the Earth you need to do it with a low light exposition in your camera. The other reason is the fact that the stars are way too far from the Moon than the Earth, so is the same that happend when you make a close up pic of something or someone and everything around is blurred but in a higher way.

ITT Autists prove the moon landings

Like you can disprove it

light pollution is a thing

Fucktard, the iris on the lens is closed down tight because the surface of the moon is so bright, unlike your brain.

go out side and take a picture ofthe night sky and i bet you wont see any stars...

...

So what're you saying, OP?
>THE MOON LANDING IS FAKE BECAUSE NO STARS
Alright, assuming they filmed this shit in some lot somewhere, wouldn't stars be the first fucking thing they include in the backdrop?

How come we have no pics of the sun from the surface of the moon?

Yes it would be my brotha

Let's take it one further..
Hypothetically, let's say it IS indeed faked even more so flat earth is true

WHY would we be lied to?
You might argue that the symbol of US power at the time was that accomplishment... But why would the enemies of the US then continue too lie with them, and all the scientists with integrity also lie?
What could possibly be gained by the scientific community and governments that they would lie and make such elaborate hoaxes

For the same reason you don't see stars during the day on earth. The light reflection of the moons surface makes seeing stars difficult. But this is likely nothing to do with it. The white balance is likely to blame here.

OP forgets the sun exists and there's nothing to block it.
OP forgets the earth reflects light.
OP forgets what light pollution is and exposure time.
Tldr; OP is a faggot troll

Literally nothing. I ask the same thing to flat earth fags. Who gains from us thinking the moon landing is real?

Is this bait? Cause it's daytime on the moon when those pics got taken. You don't see stars when the big one is out. This includes the moon.

That's a picture you try to avoid, especially with film back then. You'll get nothing but light exposure. Digital has its advantages

Anyone who thinks the moon landings were faked is emotionally retarded. Its absolutely impossible to fake something of such geopolitical significance. Noone could be so stupid as to think otherwise, so other deep seated issues are at work in such people

Because of the great space race. The americans wanted to be credited with landing on the moon first, to beat the russians

Hint:
>It's the camera

Isn't that what they want you to think?

how can stars be real if our eyes arent real?

no i notice that many pics of the moon landing are photocomposites of two parts: foreground and background
the lighting gives it away

in 1969? dont have the tech to sim it right

>enemies of the US
google "the best enemy money can buy"
long story short Wall Street propped up the USSR all throughout the cold war and before
at high level it's all a sham, there are no opposite sides
today think of isis, the saudis, china, the jews, the euros, etc

stars are cause by atmospheric refraction, like rainbows. of course you can't see them from the moon because there is no atmosphere.

But they have the tech to fake photos of the earth...

Really? They could still do a double exposure in the 1969. Just because it was before photoshop, it doesn't mean people couldn't fuck with photos.

>the big one
Do you mean the sun?

You don't see stars during the day

Obviously, the "Moon Landing" was faked,
because the Moon is fake.

The earth isn't flat

no, he has a point. but new photo software actually enhanced these picture and stars to appear. what you see now is the original picture with no enhancement