NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?

[JayUtah]

If you can debunk this mans work, do so.

I did.  I pointed out where his method was incorrect.

NO ONE can duplicate this anomoly with any type of camera, lens or  film with the sun as the only source of light...

Already done.

...because if one shadow is perpindicular to the cameras field of veiw in the forground they all will be...

Counterexamples on my web site.  What you're proposing is not any "rule" of perspective.

I believe NASA used a compound stage light that was very intense and flourecent lighting for filling in shadows.

Your burden of proof.  You say duplication is the only standard you will accept.  Therefore duplicate it with the apparatus you say was used.  Prove it can do what you say it can.

[Chief]

You have never taken a photograph, and may well never have been outside. You can not spell perpendicular. A genius would be able to.

He used the little used word perpindicular instead. Sometimes it makes it easier to understand a word if we break it down.

So we have:  Perp as in perpetrator in dic as in phallus and ular as in the Indonesian island.

Where does that lead us? The perpetrator - Romulus the "colloquial word for phallus" lives on the Indonesian island of Ular.

Anyone have any issues with my theory?

[JayUtah]

If you can prove his work, do so. Copying and pasting and simple "Because I say so" is not desired here.

Indeed.  Scientific investigation is not simply a license agreement where you scroll to the bottom and click Agree.

In fact, if you can prove he is a physicist, do so.

Or, in fact, that he even exists outside of Aulis.  There is a growing trend these days among all conspiracy theories where key work that allegedly proves the theory is being done by "a Russian physicist."  The work is generally abysmal on its face.  But the notion of an unverifiable foreign authority seems to carry some mystique among conspiracy believers this year.

[Romulus]

You know, a reasonably intelligent person can construct a defense against practically any kind of obvious truth. Why are there no tracks from a wheeled vehicle where astronauts  footprints can clearly be seen right where the wheels would have had to roll? Well, they picked it up, it was light on the moon.....Ok, it's possible, yeah.  But we both no he real reason is because it was carried there and placed. No dust displaced under the ascent stage engine? Well, it only had the force of a leave blower...(LMAO)....Astronauts exposed to essentially exactly the same rate of radiation exposure on LEO missions as where they traversed the van allen belts and walked on the lunar surface outside the protection of the magnetosphere, surviving 1600 x ray flares and many hundreds of par tile events...THEY GOT REAL LUCKY, they "won the lottery" so to speak..45 years later it cannot be done, a no government claims it is near ready ebcause they don't have the means to get beyond the magnetosphere and protect astronauts from radiator in space, but these 6 missions all succeeded in the past century nearly half a century ago and not a single man was lost on any lunar mission, not even a broken finger or scraped knee....And a man filmed dropping off a ladder supposedly on the moon can be experimentally proved to have been accelerating at a speed 2.5 times what he would on the moon, and NASA claims our videos are not e idence because they're not first generation, while claiming to have lost the originals. DO you see my point?
NO INTELLIGENT INDIVIDUAL AFTER SEEING THESE THINGS AND MANY MANY MORE EXPLAINED AWAY IN THE MANNER YOU HAVE IS GOING TO CONCLUDE ANYTHING MUCH DIFFERENT THAT WHAT I HAVE.











IT'S A BIG HOAX, A LIE, PSY OP, IT"S DAVY CROCKETT WINNING THE BATTLE OF THE ALAMO WHILE HIDING IN THE BASEMENT OF  A STOLEN MISSION AND BEING CUT TO PIECES BY SANTA ANA'S ARMY. REMEMBER THE ALAMO! REMEMBER APOLLO!
Not just bragging of a false accomplishment, but claiming the most amazing thing in human history, and it is a goddamned lie.


I AM THE KILLER OF ANCIENT GODS

[Chief]

He claimed that he had not read any 'propaganda' from either side yet came up with some strikingly similar (read identical) arguments, made by the most notorious hoaxers ever, all by himself. 

Great minds think alike or was he the stereotypical, dime a dozen,  hoaxer who thought he could actually go head to head with professionals.

I actually feel there must be some sort of mental imbalance or they have smoked to much funny stuff. The paranoia is very telling.

[Romulus]

You have never taken a photograph, and may well never have been outside. You can not spell perpendicular. A genius would be able to.

He used the little used word perpindicular instead. Sometimes it makes it easier to understand a word if we break it down.

So we have:  Perp as in perpetrator in dic as in phallus and ular as in the Indonesian island.

Where does that lead us? The perpetrator - Romulus the "colloquial word for phallus" lives on the Indonesian island of Ular.

Anyone have any issues with my theory?

I think you might be well advised to lay off of the psychotropics, to be honest. Misspelling perpendicular with an "i" in the place of an "e" isn't really THAT big a deal, that is unless you're a propagandist trained to exploit any minor mistake.

[Romulus]

He claimed that he had not read any 'propaganda' from either side yet came up with some strikingly similar (read identical) arguments, made by the most notorious hoaxers ever, all by himself. 

Great minds think alike or was he the stereotypical, dime a dozen,  hoaxer who thought he could actually go head to head with professionals.

I actually feel there must be some sort of mental imbalance or they have smoked to much funny stuff. The paranoia is very telling.

The fact that you are professional liars does not equate with any competence in the fields required to understand this subject, which you and your comrades have proved this over an over again, and consistency across the board.

Anyone with a moderate level of intelligence can do what you are doing here.It's easy  .What isn't easy is actually proving anything, and if any of you could, YOU WOULDN'T BE HERE STILL TRYING TO 48 YEARS LATER

[nomuse]

I believe NASA used a compound stage light that was very intense and flourecent lighting for filling in shadows.

I'm sorry I didn't see this one earlier. "Compound" lights. What compound? Some baking powder to go with the flour?

[Bob B.]

I was really just wanting to prove the same people showed up no matter where you expose the NASA moonlanding hoax (they did)

This is the only forum in which I discuss the Apollo hoax theory.  (I use to be active elsewhere but that hasn't been the case for years.)

if I could get them to admit that they refused to use the scientific method to defend their claims

Just like you didn't.  We'll use the scientific method when it is applicable.

Since Jay and Bob are in the public arena representing NASA

I don't represent anybody but myself.

[Chief]

I believe NASA used a compound stage light that was very intense and flourecent lighting for filling in shadows.

I'm sorry I didn't see this one earlier. "Compound" lights. What compound? Some baking powder to go with the flour?

I think the idea is that it is some sort of diffuser to soften the contrast and reduce the secondary shadow. That's my guess anyhow.

[Bob B.]

An example of Apollo surface photograph with shadows at angles with great differences of at least 45 degrees that cannot be explained in any other manner than the light source being much closer to the subjects than the Sun:
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-68-9486.jpg
In this example we see shadows   with angles with differences of at least  45 degrees.

The shadow of the LM is to the front-right of it, just like the rocks in the foreground.  The only difference is that the LM is viewed from the side while the rocks are viewed from a higher angle.

[Chief]

Hey Bob,

Do you have any issue with me printing your website so I can read it at my leisure?

[nomuse]

I believe NASA used a compound stage light that was very intense and flourecent lighting for filling in shadows.

I'm sorry I didn't see this one earlier. "Compound" lights. What compound? Some baking powder to go with the flour?

I think the idea is that it is some sort of diffuser to soften the contrast and reduce the secondary shadow. That's my guess anyhow.

Well, except the problem is sunlight is hard-edged shadows. From the Earth to the Moon had a lot of fun pushing sufficient lumens downrange. As I recall they pointed a half-dozen HMI fixtures at a single reflector and used that as the "sun" source. You are quite right, there's a typical diffuse source used a lot in television that's a bunch of lamps in an egg-crate arrangement. I hadn't heard them called "compound" but then I don't work film or TV -- strictly stage.

And in the theater, "Compound stage light" is about as close to the terminology we use as would be, say, "relic ornamental clothing" for a period costume or "actor-used replica" for a hand prop.

[JayUtah]

The shadow of the LM is to the front-right of it, just like the rocks in the foreground.  The only difference is that the LM is viewed from the side while the rocks are viewed from a higher angle.

That's the other interpretation I pitched to Mythbusters.  I believe the shadow of the LM falls farther toward the viewer than is at first apparent.  Whether by the natural effect of distance (which tends to render all marginally transverse shadows closer to apparent horizontal the farther away they are), or by the combined effect of distance and terrain, I believe the shadow of the foreground rocks more closely represents the true illumination azimuth.

[Bob B.]

Hey Bob,

Do you have any issue with me printing your website so I can read it at my leisure?

No problem at all.  I put the information out there for you to use in anyway you'd like.