Apollo Moon Landings Faked?

[Craig W]

TC,

Two things:

1) Please see my amended last post - I got your photos mixed up and my post, as a result, made no sense. I have now corrected it. Apologies for the confusion.

2) I have no problem understanding the shadow convergence as shown in your last "three shadow figures" photo. But the variance of the angles of their shadows is nowhere near as great as that of the shadows in the NASA shot posted by flamesong.

[flamesong]

But how many bleedin' times do I have to say this?

...it is the invisible lines between specific points on an object and the corresponding points on their shadows which ought to appear parallel in sunlight - not the shadows themselves.

If you extend your yellow lines backwards, behind the observer, they do not point at the source of light, do they? However, if you do as I have been trying to say (I can't be arsed to count the times) and extend a line from the top of the central shadow's right ear to the top of the right ear of the person in the centre, that line, by virtue of it being straight, will point at the source of light which I presume in this case is the Sun.

[flamesong]

[telecasterisation]

Good to have you back flamesong, thought you'd exited the debate.

Nice graphic by the way - it clearly states that all lines point at the source of the light - sweet.

So when you compare the two following images, the right amended to mirror your liking for all things native American - the points lining up on subject and corresponding shadow;



So, and I assume you accept that the earthbound image was taken using just the sun as its only light source, you see that in an identical way, the lines in the Earth image do exactly the same thing as your's do in the 'Moon' one - appear to point at differing light sources.

b* huh?

[telecasterisation]

The question of the additional shadow;

I am assuming I have identified the shadow correctly marked 'A'?

I see this as being the shadow cast by a simple lip of a raised groove running from astronot and the leg and not an additional light source to the right of camera creating an additional shadow of the leg of the lander.

If this was as suggested an additional leg shadow, it would appear on the 'foot' as well (B) - or looked at another way, why would the main light source not cancel out the shadow if it simply runs across the surface and not down in a groove? This is a point often overlooked by multiple light exponents - one would cancel out the other and there would be no shadows - not numerous ones.

The width marked C is dramatically different in the closest leg shadow too.

[flamesong]

To be honest, that isn't really my problem. All that concerns me is that the laws of physics as I learned them at school have not, to the best of my knowledge, changed. There is a common error made when discussing shadows and I felt the need to clarify it.

I spent many years convinced that it was all fake (though, it has to be said, not as many as I had previously believed their authenticity!) but I am now an agnostic - as such I am not out to win arguments.

[Craig W]

TC,

Two things:

1) Please see my amended last post - I got your photos mixed up and my post, as a result, made no sense. I have now corrected it. Apologies for the confusion.

2) I have no problem understanding the shadow convergence as shown in your last "three shadow figures" photo. But the variance of the angles of their shadows is nowhere near as great as that of the shadows in the NASA shot posted by flamesong.

TC, can you answer this post and my amended previous post? Could you take a photo with shadows on either side of the photographer's shadow that are cast in opposing directions as in the NASA shot? None of your attempts fully replicates shadows like those in the NASA shot, where rocks on the right cast shadows to the left and rocks on the left cast shadows to the right with the photographer's shadow being cast straight ahead.

[StopThe9/11CoverUp]

I dont know if its been mentioned here (apologies if it has) but has anyone here seen the video clip form inside the craft? The camera starts in the middle facing the astronaut pans 180 degrees to the right to show a window with earth clearly visible. The camera then pans back to middle the pans 180 degrees to the left showing another window. And what is clearly visible in this window I hear you ask?

THE EARTH

Complete hoax job done say hi to the ruskies for me.

[blackcat]

http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1750241

Catch them young.

[flamesong]

I dont know if its been mentioned here (apologies if it has) but has anyone here seen the video clip form inside the craft? The camera starts in the middle facing the astronaut pans 180 degrees to the right to show a window with earth clearly visible. The camera then pans back to middle the pans 180 degrees to the left showing another window. And what is clearly visible in this window I hear you ask?

THE EARTH...

If the camera pans 180º to the right it is then, in effect, pointing in the oppposite direction to the astronauts - so when it pans 180º to the left it will also be pointing in the opposite direction to the astronauts. The only conclusion - there is only one window.

I suspect you meant 90º but your error has revealed the most likely explanation.

[telecasterisation]

TC,

Two things:

1) Please see my amended last post - I got your photos mixed up and my post, as a result, made no sense. I have now corrected it. Apologies for the confusion.

2) I have no problem understanding the shadow convergence as shown in your last "three shadow figures" photo. But the variance of the angles of their shadows is nowhere near as great as that of the shadows in the NASA shot posted by flamesong.

TC, can you answer this post and my amended previous post? Could you take a photo with shadows on either side of the photographer's shadow that are cast in opposing directions as in the NASA shot? None of your attempts fully replicates shadows like those in the NASA shot, where rocks on the right cast shadows to the left and rocks on the left cast shadows to the right with the photographer's shadow being cast straight ahead.

Sorry Craig - I must be missing something, I am unable to see any question or point (except the one I am about to mention) that is outstanding. Do you mean the shadows of the people compared to the NASA shadows in the black and white image? They are significantly different in terms of subject, camera to subject distance and terrain, so would unquestionably appear different.

You ask for a specific image to be taken to replicate the NASA shot. Firstly I would have to find a similar location, the size of the bowllike hollow would have to be close in terms of size. Next, the position to the sun would have to be likewise with no obstructions and lastly we would actually need some sun - currently we are enclosed by dense thick fog.

[ZUCO]

Thanks for the explanation of the pic TC - I'm no expert on this subject at all.

One thing that I've never seen explained though is the video of the astronauts faking their distance from Earth. Can anybody explain this?

[telecasterisation]

Thanks for the explanation of the pic TC - I'm no expert on this subject at all.

One thing that I've never seen explained though is the video of the astronauts faking their distance from Earth. Can anybody explain this?

There are many sites that have a good go at debunking the whole hoax thing - they go into great detail about radiation and temperatures influencing the film in the cameras, shadows, waving flag and a host of other things. However, the thing you mention tends to get a wide berth and in many ways is the Holy Grail of lunar smoking guns.

The date stamp says they should be on route - out there in the inky void - yet here there are mocking up views of the Earth through the window. the camera gets turned on and off and on again - when recently confronted with the video evidence, the astronauts simply play the 'angry, you must be a nutter' card.

This is a difficult one to explain away - the only real viable explanation is that the date on the footage is wrong. I have yet to see any of the 'we definitely went' club even prod this one from a distance - it is a tough one to tackle.

[Craig W]

TC,

Two things:

1) Please see my amended last post - I got your photos mixed up and my post, as a result, made no sense. I have now corrected it. Apologies for the confusion.

2) I have no problem understanding the shadow convergence as shown in your last "three shadow figures" photo. But the variance of the angles of their shadows is nowhere near as great as that of the shadows in the NASA shot posted by flamesong.

TC, can you answer this post and my amended previous post? Could you take a photo with shadows on either side of the photographer's shadow that are cast in opposing directions as in the NASA shot? None of your attempts fully replicates shadows like those in the NASA shot, where rocks on the right cast shadows to the left and rocks on the left cast shadows to the right with the photographer's shadow being cast straight ahead.

Sorry Craig - I must be missing something, I am unable to see any question or point (except the one I am about to mention) that is outstanding. Do you mean the shadows of the people compared to the NASA shadows in the black and white image? They are significantly different in terms of subject, camera to subject distance and terrain, so would unquestionably appear different.

You ask for a specific image to be taken to replicate the NASA shot. Firstly I would have to find a similar location, the size of the bowllike hollow would have to be close in terms of size. Next, the position to the sun would have to be likewise with no obstructions and lastly we would actually need some sun - currently we are enclosed by dense thick fog.

Hi TC,

Thanks for your thoughtful replies so far.

Perhaps I haven't explained my last question very well.

As this is becoming a little pointless and dull, whatever your answer, I promise this will be my final post on the matter.

All I am saying is that your photos have replicated some of the shadow effects of the said NASA picture but not all of them.

Notably, your picture of a single figure's shadow has rocks to the right of it whose shadows converge with the photographer's shadow. But the NASA shot also features rocks to the left of the photographer's shadow whose shadows are convergent with the photographer's shadow, and much more steeply convergent than the convergent shadows on your three-figure shot.

While I agree that you have demonstrated explanations for some of the effects, they have not replicated the extreme angles of convergence seen in the NASA shot.

That's me done.

[telecasterisation]

The three figure shadow shot will not in any way demonstrate the effects of light falling into a narrow hollow in the ground. The apparent acute angles of the shadows, both left and right, are merely illusions created by the perspective of the camera/viewer.

Admittedly, the previous Earth based image I supplied of the hollow that demonstrated the same acute angles was discarded by flamesong with a nonchalent 'To be honest, that isn't really my problem', which wasn't surprising under the circumstances.

All this stuff about arrows and lines is a smokescreen - the majority of suspect questionable shadows can be explained as being naturally occurring manifestations and not multiple lighting rigs creating them. It is most often the angle at which you view an image combined with the assorted other factors that conspire to raise the eyebrows.

If mutliple lighting was used - always remember that multiple light sources create multiple shadows and each would cancel the other out where those areas overlap.

[flamesong]

No, TC, it isn't my problem because, as I have stated ad nauseum, I am not defending a corner - though to be honest I made the mistake of hastily paraphrasing somebody instead of directly quoting them and found myself awkwardly positioned in the multiple light source camp.

But thanks for posting that photo with the two shadows of different lengths and at different angles. This has been used many times to 'prove' the moon fake scenario by pointing out that the shadows are not parallel. As we have seen, shadows are not always parallel. Though, on the face of it, it appears to support notion that rays of sunlight are parallel. But if you apply the simple analysis of comparing the lines joining the corresponding points of object and shadow they are clearly not parallel.



As you say, Oh b*!

[telecasterisation]

No, TC, it isn't my problem because, as I have stated ad nauseum, I am not defending a corner - though to be honest I made the mistake of hastily paraphrasing somebody instead of directly quoting them and found myself awkwardly positioned in the multiple light source camp.

But thanks for posting that photo with the two shadows of different lengths and at different angles. This has been used many times to 'prove' the moon fake scenario by pointing out that the shadows are not parallel. As we have seen, shadows are not always parallel. Though, on the face of it, it appears to support notion that rays of sunlight are parallel. But if you apply the simple analysis of comparing the lines joining the corresponding points of object and shadow they are clearly not parallel.



As you say, Oh b*!

I acknowledge the sentiment of at least attempting to respond with a doozey, however you never come out and state what you are implying? What is the conclusion you never actually come out and state?

In other words, are you suggesting that the only possible option of the varying shadows is more than one light source?

[flamesong]

I have learned never to be embarassed to say that I don't know.

So, as with a lot of other things, I don't know.

[chek]

http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1750241

Catch them young.

Great clip BC.
Makes John Conner look reticent.

[Celtic King]

http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1750241

Catch them young.

Great clip BC.
Makes John Conner look reticent.

Criminal minds... thats it folks... thats how it all works....we are brainwashed because we dont have the courage to figure it all out....

[telecasterisation]

But thanks for posting that photo with the two shadows of different lengths and at different angles. This has been used many times to 'prove' the moon fake scenario by pointing out that the shadows are not parallel. As we have seen, shadows are not always parallel. Though, on the face of it, it appears to support notion that rays of sunlight are parallel. But if you apply the simple analysis of comparing the lines joining the corresponding points of object and shadow they are clearly not parallel.

As you say, Oh b*!

Sorry I haven't been able to respond to your points before now.

You are making a big assumption here flamesong.

You have no way of knowing that point 'A' is the end of the shadow of the astrono on the left. Look at the picture below;



The terrain is such and the picture quality poor enough, to have no real idea of the way the ground is shaped. I see it as the left hand astronot is walking next to the top of a hill/downward gradient marked with a red line. The shadow simply carries on marked in green and cannot be seen from the camera's position.

Sorry big guy, but your lines mean nothing in this circumstance.

Try again?

[flamesong]

What should I try again to do, TC?

[telecasterisation]

What should I try again to do, TC?

You attempted the old turnaroundaroony with;

But thanks for posting that photo with the two shadows of different lengths and at different angles. ...........................But if you apply the simple analysis of comparing the lines joining the corresponding points of object and shadow they are clearly not parallel.

As you say, Oh b*!

However, the lines and 'science' angle have collapsed due to the complete uncertainty of the end of the shadow - you are an intelligent human being and I am certain you understand the point I have made.

You make no comment other than ask what else can you do? I agree, your point has nowhere else to go and if you want to leave it there, I'm cool with that. It is a strange way to admit you are at a loss, but I'm cool with that.

[flamesong]

I have learned never to be embarassed to say that I don't know.

So, as with a lot of other things, I don't know.

I don't know.

I don't know whether anybody has been to the Moon or not. I am not seeking to prove it one way or another.

I don't know why shadows in photos apparently contradict phisical laws.

I am perpetually bemused that a forum dedicated to the truth can have such a negative attitude to objectivity.

But in answer to your point, you yourself used the words assumption, and uncertainty with regard to my assertion and then make an equal assumtion of an uncertainty about a photo you acknowledge is of poor quality.

I don't mind having a bit of fun discussing this with you but please drop any assuption that I am out to prove anything - in this thread at least.

[telecasterisation]

I have learned never to be embarassed to say that I don't know.

So, as with a lot of other things, I don't know.

I don't know.

I don't know whether anybody has been to the Moon or not. I am not seeking to prove it one way or another.

I don't know why shadows in photos apparently contradict phisical laws.

I am perpetually bemused that a forum dedicated to the truth can have such a negative attitude to objectivity.

But in answer to your point, you yourself used the words assumption, and uncertainty with regard to my assertion and then make an equal assumtion of an uncertainty about a photo you acknowledge is of poor quality.

I don't mind having a bit of fun discussing this with you but please drop any assuption that I am out to prove anything - in this thread at least.

We all have differing ways of dealing with issues that arise in forums such as these. Where possible, I always attempt at least to deal with all questions and points raised, however we have all seen the tactics used to wiggle and squirm out of things that tend to destroy an argument that originally seemed watertight.

I know we have history of sorts and have no wish whatsoever to make it appear as if there is any animosity between us. You are prone though to ignore points and by that I mean that we had an interchange regarding the subject of shadows and you used science to illustrate that the light source was suspect due to the compartive length of the shadows. I pointed out that we cannot state with any certainty that we know the length of the shadows, or one at least. Instead of simply agreeing that it is indeed possible that part of the shadow cannot be seen you dive behind a barrage of meaningless nonsense.

Of course you 'don't know', but science relies on facts and there are precious few given the bad quality of the image. No-one would think any less of you if you simply agreed that there could be part of the shadow missing. The ego is a powerful adversary and it can be difficult to stop it speaking on your behalf.

Unless we can be certain of shadow lengths (which we cannot) - then doubt is present and like it or not, on that basis, science is not part of any equation we can use here.

[flamesong]

Sorry, I didn't realise this was an ego disintegration contest.

[telecasterisation]

Sorry, I didn't realise this was an ego disintegration contest.

It isn't, it is a debate where points are raised and discussed. You seem to view it as a personal attack, a kind of ongoing combative interchange that culminates in your mild philippic.

I can only reiterate;

I have made a point that you have yet to tackle. I apologise that the science based point you believed was bombproof has been blown asunder. This is what happens when you rely on science to explain everything.

[rodin]

I am with Tele on the shadows issue as I posted before. Staley Kubrick made the moon videos and he did not make any silly mistakes. For a double-bluff moon hoax video you must see' Dark Side of the Moon'. Read between the lines between the lines.

[StopThe9/11CoverUp]

My mistake 90 degrees (my maths is poor).

But no explanation for it, if you watch the video the camera is facing the astronaut, the camera pans right to show a window with th earth in it. it then comes back to centre (facing the astronaut) and then pans left to another window showing said earth again.

2 earths? I knew i must be on the wrong one!!!

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

Check out this site not far down is the video and plenty more available to.

Please comment on the clip i mentioned please!!

Ade.

[telecasterisation]

My mistake 90 degrees (my maths is poor).

But no explanation for it, if you watch the video the camera is facing the astronaut, the camera pans right to show a window with th earth in it. it then comes back to centre (facing the astronaut) and then pans left to another window showing said earth again.

2 earths? I knew i must be on the wrong one!!!

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

Check out this site not far down is the video and plenty more available to.

Please comment on the clip i mentioned please!!

Ade.

It is difficult to say with certainty that this constitutes 'evidence' as stated in the preamble at the top of the site.

I have read many times over the years that there are supposedly 'buildings' on the lunar surface. The person in the video says he estimates some to be about half a mile in size and highly reflective. We do not have the capabilities to see the lunar landing sites - but we certainly do have the equipment to see buildings of the dimensions stated.

Given we have all kinds of fake documentaries and spoof movies - can we say with certainty that this isn't just another of those? In other words, how do we know this is in any way genuine???

One other point, are the buildings supposed to be occupied or vacant?

Why can't we see this with a powerful telescope, is it on the darkside?;



Gut reaction, this is all nonsense.