Not that it'll convince them of anything, mind you

The Incubus

__________________
"Science is a way for us to not fool ourselves." - Richard Feynman

I assume the lunar module is the bright spot?

__________________
"As I lay beneath the Southern Cross, the stars tell more than I could" . . . David Meece

I guess so?

This is cool too: "Mouse click" on the Apollo names on the Moon photo, then keep "clicking" on the images. Getting closer...closer...

That is cool!

It also makes you appreciate what the pilot had to go through to land the thing - avoid that mountain, avoid that crator, . . . .

__________________
"As I lay beneath the Southern Cross, the stars tell more than I could" . . . David Meece

That ain't no proof. Bet there's millions of spots that look like that on the moon. Yep. Deffinitely millions of them. See ain't no spacecraft up there. I see it foing but it aint goin to no moon. No sir. No way. No how. Not up dere. I aint listening to that NASA mumbo jumbo for a second. Can't convince me no scientimitist figured out how to land there. I aint not no fool.

Let's see some links to these millions of photos.

The problem is that it is not identifiable as an LM. All you can see is a bright spot and what appears to be a shadow. Could easily be a big rock. And just because NASA says that's where the LM would be, well, we can't take their word for it.

See how easy that is?

Oh, definantly. But I wonder if they can explain why that spot is brighter than all the other luminated features in the photo?

[Bleep! Bleep! More creative thought needed . . . .]

Ok, this might just be a terribly stupid question, but on the link which eventually goes to that guy's site (with the various lunar landing sites you can click into), are the bright lines all around the lander actually rover tracks? That would be a hard one to explain as being "random blobs."

__________________
jest

"Don't worry, everything is getting nicely out of control." -Douglas Adams

The bright lines are not in the original images. They've been overlaid to show the routes of the rovers on various EVAs -- that is, to show where the astronauts went on their explorations.

This is apparent when you compare the original image (linked in the original post) with the same image -plus overlaid lines- that you see when you zoom in to the highest magnification on the other site.

Well, playing twinkies' advocate here, it wouldn't be that hard to come up with a non-LM explanation for such a bright spot. For instance, it could be a large boulder with a facet that just happened to be aligned so as to reflect the morning sun toward the CM.

Of course, this begs the question: how did we get the picture at all if there wasn't a CM in lunar orbit?

You haven't been paying attention to the "Twinkies". It's obviously a Hubble image, thereby proving that it can take closeups of the Moon - which proves that NASA has been lying about its capabilities - and that's why they won't point it at the Moon. To do so would prove there are no landing sites and LM descent stages left on the surface.
See - it's all logical - in Twinkie-logic anyway. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

I have a feeling that, considering how expensive it is to run the space telescope, their priorities are slightly higher than an object that we can see quite clearly at night from even the most light-polluted cities in the world. I imagine a lot of people fail to realize what's out there beyond the orbit of the Moon. That's why we have Hubble.

__________________
jest

"Don't worry, everything is getting nicely out of control." -Douglas Adams