Moon Hoax conspiracy

[R.Mackey]

Pretty much everything in that video is available as a still on-line. Since we can't be there with you to see which ones bother you, perhaps you could find them and post a link?

This archive contains, I believe, every relevant image you could imagine... Including images pre-launch, during assembly and checkout, which are themselves further evidence of the non-hoax nature of Apollo.

 

[TraitorBasher]

Pretty much everything in that video is available as a still on-line. Since we can't be there with you to see which ones bother you, perhaps you could find them and post a link?

This archive contains, I believe, every relevant image you could imagine... Including images pre-launch, during assembly and checkout, which are themselves further evidence of the non-hoax nature of Apollo.

This image is odd. One astronauts shadow is much longer than the other.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Congradulations ER

I


As for the shadows. Your link is pretty convincing. I did not lie when I said this video was my first foray into moon hoax conspiracies and maybe I posted here in haste without checking the facts.

You are showing some critical thinking potential. Perhaps you should spend some more time here.

 

[ArmillarySphere]

Uneven ground.

 

[MG1962]

This image is odd. One astronauts shadow is much longer than the other.

Please visit these two links I provided earlier. They both contain experiments you can conduct yourself to show the two phenomena you are seeing in that image

http://www.clavius.org/a11rear.html

And here

http://www.clavius.org/trrnshdow.html

 

[R.Mackey]

That is an odd picture, but it looks to be caused by the hill behind the astronauts (at about 10 o'clock in the image) increasing in slope. As the hill gets steeper, the vertical distortion of the shadow will decrease.

If we look for a panoramic image from that set, we should be able to show that the hill is, in fact, steeper in that direction.

ETA: That shot is from Apollo 11. The slope in that direction is there, but is gentle:



More likely, instead, is the "longer" shadow overlying a shallow depression.

But also notice my picture is a hand-held, whereas the other picture is the robotic camera mounted on the LEM itself. That camera has a wider, more distorting lens, since it's designed to wrap around the landing area rather than look at the horizon.

ETA II: This distortion is visible. You'll note that the two astronauts and the flag, while all standing vertically, are not pointing in the same direction. In the image, the tops of their heads and the top of the flag seem to converge. Same effect.

Without a ruler, it's impossible to say just how different those shadow lengths are, or if they're different at all.

 

[apathoid]

You also have to consider the reason the converging shadows are supposed to anomalous, that is, multiple light sources(from overhead obviously). Multiple light sources cast multiple translucent shadows, I first noticed the effect in a stadium when I was young. It was cool to see several of my shadows extending in all directions like spokes.

In some of the supposedly anomalous NASA photos, there is no evidence of a second(or thrid or fourth) shadow. There is only one, which tells me there is only one light source.

Is there another supposed reason the non-parallel shadows are anomalous?

 

[Brainache]

This image is odd. One astronauts shadow is much longer than the other.

You really should get out of the house more.

What I see in that pic. is in no way odd. The gound slopes down and then up again. The astronaut on the right is standing slightly up-slope from the guy on the left. It is the kind of shadow which is so easy to explain, that calling it "odd" indicates to me that you don't actually pay much attention to things around you in the real world.

 

[R.Mackey]

I threw my horizon picture too soon. The following one is better:



Taken from http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html, this is image AS11-40-5855.

You can clearly see the slope and signs of a depression where the two astronauts would be standing.

It also bears pointing out that the LEM is quite a large vehicle. It's not just barely big enough for two people to fit, it's more like the size of a garbage truck. There's a training example in the Space Museum in Huntsville, Alabama, among other places.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Some of the shedows I saw in the film in the opening post are converging at right angles. That cannot be explained by terrain.

It doesn't have to be. Do you actually read my posts? Personally I'm starting to assume not because if you did you'd have seen that I gave you the four reasons for different appearing angles of shadows. Shadows that appear to be at 90° are usually far from the camera and are a virtually all a product of Foreshortening.

This image is odd. One astronauts shadow is much longer than the other.

Another reason I don't think you read my posts, or even look at the pictures.

Note the shadow lengths in these two images

See how they switch lengths because of the camera angle and the terrain?

What we see in the Apollo shot is the same (Note also that this is a still from the Data Acquisition Camera (DAC) which was running at, IIRC, 1 frame a second. If you watch the footage rather then selecting a single frame, you'll see that the ground is quite uneven, and the shadow length is caused by Buzz standing on the lip of a shallow depression and Neil standing at the bottom of it. Buzz's shadow is being cast down the crater slop and up the other side, Neil's is just being cast up the side.

 

[jimbob]

You should get out more

I had been unaware of the exact anture of the "arguments" for the moon photos being faked, until I read this thread.

My four year old daughter would have noticed the effect on hills.

If you live somewhere flat, just stand near a wall and notice that at the appropriate location, your shadow changes direction as it goes from along the ground to up the wall.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I have pmmed you with the evidence of the post deletion.

I accept your explanation for illumination of the astronaut. I am skeptical regarding the shadows though.

I do not believe the Van Allen radiation would be fatal in the time the astronauts were exposed.

I can confirm you made a post with the (elsewhere) mentioned content. If it is no longer there, it was deleted.

ER, you are on the verge of holding a decent and sensible discussion. Your consessions in the post I quote is a sign of this. But making posts like the one that was apparantly deleted is going in the wrong direction. I don't see any big offence in playing a bit with a username, although it is something I would only do myself in two situations:

1) To offend that user.

2) In cases where I was certain it would be understood humourously.

However, putting a debater on ignore and alleging that you have or could "break" him is nonconstructive. Especially if you obviously can't. I suggest you try for decent debate instead.

What is YOUR explanation of the shadows? In other words, how do the peculiarity of some of the shadows support a hoax theory?

Hans

 

[Belz...]

Some of the shedows I saw in the film in the opening post are converging at right angles. That cannot be explained by terrain.

I told you, Rich, there is NO other explanation than terrain (and 2D photo effects, as other have said). You CANNOT have this effect with two light sources and a single light source could NOT cause convergent shadows.

You've been proven wrong on this and all your other claims. Do you have actually anything in the way of evidence ?

Thanks for proving I made no such claim.

Funny person:

ERichardson, do you agree that Van Allen Belt radiation is not lethal to astronauts? Yes, or no?

No.

Of course, this doesn't change the fact that you've apparently changed your mind about this:

I do not believe the Van Allen radiation would be fatal in the time the astronauts were exposed.

But you DID claim this in the past.

Congratulations on changing your mind, by the way. Moon hoaxers rarely do. (Edit: people rarely do)

As for the shadows. Your link is pretty convincing. I did not lie when I said this video was my first foray into moon hoax conspiracies and maybe I posted here in haste without checking the facts.

Then I retract my statements about it.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Just for the record: Anybody who has worked with studio photography wil know that having two distinct light sources will not result in diverging, converging, or different hight shadows. It will result in double shadows.

But ER, so far, good for you to seem to be open to arguments. Just try to avoid the defensive style, and you'll do fine here.

Hans

 

[CptColumbo]

Just for the record: Anybody who has worked with studio photography wil know that having two distinct light sources will not result in diverging, converging, or different hight shadows. It will result in double shadows.

But ER, so far, good for you to seem to be open to arguments. Just try to avoid the defensive style, and you'll do fine here.

Hans

That's why I always used a filler light.

[slight derail]One thing that has always bugged me about the arguments of "Moon Hoaxers" and those who believe that the pyramids were built by aliens, is the underestimation of human capability. I find it insulting that they believe we are not capable of such achievements, which if broken down into their component parts are not that impossible. Give human beings (and if possible the specific people involved) the credit they are due.[/slight derail]

 

[Belz...]

That's why I always used a filler light.

[slight derail]One thing that has always bugged me about the arguments of "Moon Hoaxers" and those who believe that the pyramids were built by aliens, is the underestimation of human capability. I find it insulting that they believe we are not capable of such achievements, which if broken down into their component parts are not that impossible. Give human beings (and if possible the specific people involved) the credit they are due.[/slight derail]

Ditto.

But what bugs me about hoaxers and other CTers and woo-woos is that most of them are not only convinced of their ideas, but are utterly incapable of a) challenging those ideas by verifying the information they have and b) change their minds when proven wrong.

 

[DavidJames]

Ditto.

But what bugs me about hoaxers and other CTers and woo-woos is that most of them are not only convinced of their ideas, but are utterly incapable of a) challenging those ideas by verifying the information they have and b) change their minds when proven wrong.

To his credit, ER has acknowledged some refuting evidence and changed his mind on a couple of his issues with the moon landing. But so far it appears he still believes the moon landing hoax theory. I have to wonder, what will it take? Will he believe the hoax until every last one of his questions are answered to his satisfaction or will he realize, after knowing his thinking was wrong on all the other issues he found "compelling", he needs to adjust is "BS Meter".

 

[ConspiRaider]

To his credit, ER has acknowledged some refuting evidence and changed his mind on a couple of his issues with the moon landing. But so far it appears he still believes the moon landing hoax theory. I have to wonder, what will it take? Will he believe the hoax until every last one of his questions are answered to his satisfaction or will he realize, after knowing his thinking was wrong on all the other issues he found "compelling", he needs to adjust is "BS Meter".

It's a state of mind, though. Evidence and logic and reason and proof and fact aren't going to have much bearing. He's going to have to reject the mindset of a conspiracy theorist. That's the first domino. When that goes - his Moon Hoax nonsense will vaporize. As will his JFK Conspiracy nonsense. 9/11 Inside Job nonsense. They'll all tumble.

But there's always hope. He may get his mind right someday. He'll be a helluva lot happier for it. Right now - he needs the security blanket that They Are All Against Him. They're All Plotting Against Him. They Are The Reason His Life Is Not Working.

Must be hell being a conspiracy theorist. Horribly unhappy individuals. No sense of humor. Paranoid. Scared. Followers. And I'll bet not one of them can drive a dump truck.

 

[R.Mackey]

baby steps, guys, baby steps. We're making progress.

 

[ConspiRaider]

baby steps, guys, baby steps. We're making progress.

Roger that, Mack. And you've got a helluva lot more patience with folks such as ER than I do, so you get my commendation for that.

For me? When I was woo in the 70s? The turning point was reading The Amityville Horror. It just didn't quite ring true. Domino Numero Uno for me.