Good books about the moon landings hoax?

[Luke Pemberton]

In case non-New Zealanders don't get that, the expression, "C'mon, it's not rocket science" is very common here...

My sister when bemused during my incessant physics and chemistry discussions still makes me laugh with her perennial question, 'what do rocket scientists say then, because they can't say it's not rocket science?'

My reply, 'it's not brain surgery I suppose. I don't know, anyway... where was I?' 

That's my feeling about the hoax. It isn't rocket science. The real landings were, and understanding them properly is, but 98% of the hoax believer claims revolve around thinking shadows in a photograph should always run parallel in the plane of the picture.

The obfuscation they produce with their photographic 'evidence' only for their house of cards to fall apart with such a ridiculous claim bewilders me. They talk techno-babble about the use of reflectors to fill in non-illuminated surfaces and studio spotlighting producing the fall-off in the famous Aldrin photograph, and then they invoke non-parallel shadows. 

I've always thought 'you've gone this far to draw people in, aren't you taking it a little bit to far with the non-parallel shadows, that's just so obviously debunked?'

The layers of complexity built into the different strands of the theory are incredulous, and each strand falls apart with the slightest of examinations. It's like the three little pigs, there's a house made of straw. Once that one is blown down they congregate in the one they think is made of brick.

This invokes the question about the flimsy nature of the theory - how is it possible that other aspects of the theory which pertain to deeper knowledge hold up if the basics can be taken apart so easily?

[Andromeda]

I never understood the "non-parallel shadows mean multiple light sources!!!1!!11!" argument.  How do the HBs reconcile their believe in multiple light sources when each object has only a single shadow? I'm not being sarcastic, I genuinely don't get it.

[Luke Pemberton]

I never understood the "non-parallel shadows mean multiple light sources!!!1!!11!" argument.  How do the HBs reconcile their believe in multiple light sources when each object has only a single shadow? I'm not being sarcastic, I genuinely don't get it.

Despite all the evidence they are shown of floodlit stadia and shadows that are not parallel. No I don't get it either. You just want to scream 'Look, look at these pictures.'

It's the Underpants Gnomes again:

1.  Parallel shadows.
2.  ?
3.  It was hoaxed.

[Andromeda]

*belief

D'oh!

[nomuse]

The obfuscation they produce with their photographic 'evidence' only for their house of cards to fall apart with such a ridiculous claim bewilders me. They talk techno-babble about the use of reflectors to fill in non-illuminated surfaces and studio spotlighting producing the fall-off in the famous Aldrin photograph, and then they invoke non-parallel shadows. 

I've always thought 'you've gone this far to draw people in, aren't you taking it a little bit to far with the non-parallel shadows, that's just so obviously debunked?'

"Techno-babble" is an accurate description. Rocket scientists aren't the only people with specialized methods, tools, and terminology.

I love it just as much when the hoaxies go blithely along about marking set pieces on the painted surfaces, sticking stand lights around at random, and otherwise getting wrong pretty much everything about how films are actually made.

[raven]

Maybe NASA didn't get Stanley Kubrick but Ed Wood.

[Luke Pemberton]

I love it just as much when the hoaxies go blithely along about marking set pieces on the painted surfaces, sticking stand lights around at random, and otherwise getting wrong pretty much everything about how films are actually made.

The Aldrin down the LM ladder and Aldrin in the crater photographs make me chuckle, as they go to great lengths to talk about reflectors to illuminate regions in shadow.

'Hang on, you do realise that Aldrin was climbing down a big shiny thing and was stood next to Armstrong who was dressed head to toe in what appears to be white?'

[JayUtah]

Maybe NASA didn't get Stanley Kubrick but Ed Wood.

I so want to make a joke about angora space suits, but I fear offending someone.

John Glenn or Joanna Glenda?  Oh, man, this stuff just writes itself.

[JayUtah]

'Hang on, you do realise that Aldrin was climbing down a big shiny thing and was stood next to Armstrong who was dressed head to toe in what appears to be white?'

The Beta cloth of the 1960s is about 80% reflective in the visible spectrum.  (In the 1980s they changed the way Beta cloth was made; it's a tad less reflective nowadays.)  The maximum surface area of an astronaut presented in any aspect is just under 2 square meters, or about the surface area of an off-the-shelf handheld photography reflector.  There really is no question what caused the fill light.  And all those brilliant hoax-claimant "photographers" can't figure it out.

[raven]

I love it just as much when the hoaxies go blithely along about marking set pieces on the painted surfaces, sticking stand lights around at random, and otherwise getting wrong pretty much everything about how films are actually made.

The Aldrin down the LM ladder and Aldrin in the crater photographs make me chuckle, as they go to great lengths to talk about reflectors to illuminate regions in shadow.

'Hang on, you do realise that Aldrin was climbing down a big shiny thing and was stood next to Armstrong who was dressed head to tow in what appears to be white?'

That's part of why I think the Mythbuster's photo was significantly less lit than Apollo's, they didn't have a giant white and gold reflector standing literally behind the camera. It still busts the myth, as Percy claims it should be  "a silhouette" in a direct quote from 'Dark Moon', but their model astronaut is darker.

[darren r]

I love it just as much when the hoaxies go blithely along about marking set pieces on the painted surfaces, sticking stand lights around at random, and otherwise getting wrong pretty much everything about how films are actually made.

The 'C' rock always makes me laugh. If NASA put letters on their set dressing rocks, does that mean they only had 26 of them? With the billions they were spending on the hoax, couldn't they afford a few more?

[Luke Pemberton]

There's a good article on Clavius that explores claims about the iconic Aldrin photo.

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

[JayUtah]

I love it just as much when the hoaxies go blithely along about marking set pieces on the painted surfaces, sticking stand lights around at random, and otherwise getting wrong pretty much everything about how films are actually made.

Yes, I've often commented that these authors know as little about filmmaking as they do about space engineering.  "C is commonly used in Hollywood to mark the center of a set," was one claim from David Percy, who frankly should know better.  (He never did work in Hollywood, but he has been a video cameraman.)

A film set has no nominal center.  Film sets are meant to be lit and photographed in several different directions, depending on the story needs.  Stage sets, especially on proscenium stages, often refer to the stage centerline as a location reference, but you don't often need to "spike" (i.e., mark) its location, and there is no letter or other kind of annotation.  On drawings of sets there is a special symbol to identify the centerline -- an elided C and L.

I have to believe these people know they don't really know what they're talking about.  If you make stuff up, you have to know you're doing it.  That speaks volumes for the apparent dishonesty.

[Luke Pemberton]

The 'C' rock always makes me laugh. If NASA put letters on their set dressing rocks, does that mean they only had 26 of them? With the billions they were spending on the hoax, couldn't they afford a few more?

I can't find the post, but HeadLikeARock and Glom pushed it hard with HBs that the photo taken directly before the C-rock photo has no C on the rock.

Again, I cannot find the post, but the C rock photo also appeared on the front of a magazine within weeks of the Apollo 16 landings. Again, no C was visible on the rock. I'm sure the magazine cover was posted when on the proboards.

[nomuse]

I love it just as much when the hoaxies go blithely along about marking set pieces on the painted surfaces, sticking stand lights around at random, and otherwise getting wrong pretty much everything about how films are actually made.

The 'C' rock always makes me laugh. If NASA put letters on their set dressing rocks, does that mean they only had 26 of them? With the billions they were spending on the hoax, couldn't they afford a few more?

It also fails the consistency test.

The same people who point at the "C" rock also claim that things got moved randomly around from shot to shot (White and his inability to think in three dimensions is the star of this one). So if each set-up is random, why would you need to mark the props at all?

Wikipedia calls this "Kettle Logic."