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

[JayUtah]

Well, except the problem is sunlight is hard-edged shadows.

Meaning the light source has to be as small as possible and undiffused.  Diffusion creates soft-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.

Correct; the same grip crew lit our documentary in the desert.  The limitation of this method is that it's essentially a spot.  It will light only a small area.

I hadn't heard them called "compound" but then I don't work film or TV -- strictly stage.

There is no such thing as a "compound light" in film or television either.  Romulus may have a specific thing in mind, and that thing may in fact exist, but that name refers to nothing the industry currently defines.  The rig you refer to is called a "bank light" or a "bank rig" in TV/film.  It's very commonly used on newsroom sets.  And it has exactly the opposite effect Romulus needs.

[Count Zero]

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. Notice that the shadow of the LEM is at right angles  to the camera's field of veiw . NO ONE can duplicate this anomoly with any type of camera, lens or  film with the sun as the only source of light

Funny you should say that, because the Mythbusters did in fact duplicate the supposedly impossible shadow angles in that very same photograph in their 2009 episode debunking moon hoax myths. They only had to recreate the appropriate surface shape.

The moon is by no means flat, even in the maria (the so-called 'seas' where five of the six Apollo missions landed). This is often not readily apparent unless you look at some of the many stereo pairs also taken by the lunar astronauts. And guess what? A highly uneven surface is exactly what you'd expect to find on a small, low gravity airless world without the effects of erosion by wind or water.

Significantly, the Mythbusters first set-up the LM and the rocks on a level surface and showed that, from that camera angle, the shadows were indeed parallel.  Then they put the rocks on a slight rise and - sure enough - with the lighting angle and camera set-up unchanged, the shadows now diverged exactly as shown in AS14-68-9486.

[smartcooky]

The only thing I will accept is experimental duplication, in other words a photograph taken with one shadow perpindicular to the cameras perspective and another at a 45 degree angle. NO HANDWAVING.It is simply not possible.  Granted, if the shadows (and light source) are much closer to parallel with the cameras field of veiw as in the example above that I have quoted, it is obvious the shadows will appear to converge, but never can. This is simply a matter of perspective, the same distance further away looks shorter.

How many examples would you like? Remember NO HANDWAVING!


The shadows of stumps "A" and "B" are parallel to the horizon (as per your requirements)
The shadow of stump "C" is at an angle
The only light source is the sun (as per your requirements)

Stumped? OK, try this one


The shadow of the furthest fencepost is parallel to the horizon (as per your requirements)
The shadow of the nearest  fencepost is at an angle of 45° (as per your requirements)
The only light source is the sun (as per your requirements)

Still not happy, then try this


The shadow of the tree is parallel to the horizon (as per your requirements)
The shadow of  the nearest fencepost is at an angle
The only light source is the sun (as per your requirements)

And if you are actually prepared to LEARN something (which I doubt, because you appear to be so arrogant and self- absorbed that you are, IMO, incapable of accepting that there is anything that anyone can teach you) then you might like to look at the next photo. If you are as clever as you think you are, it will help you to understand that the Apollo Lunar surface photo that you think is faked, isn't

[dwight]

Would I be out of line if I labelled this thread as "Cyclone Psycho"?

[gillianren]

You know, every once in a while, I just wonder if they can even read my posts.

[Zakalwe]

I will not be posting here any longer, I was really just wanting to prove the same people showed up no matter where you expose the NASA moonlanding hoax (they did), if I could get them to admit that they refused to use the scientific method to defend their claims (you didn't disappoint) and if I could prove a consistent pattern of unethical and dishonest behavior.(you didn't disappoint). Since Jay and Bob are in the public arena representing NASA, their words are public domain. Over the years between the two of you and Phil Plait,I have enough material to paint you as you as what you are.  In my opinion you all belong in jail.

Ladies and Gentlemen, it is my great pleasure to announce that the Golden Flounce award goes to....


I'd HATE to roadie for any band that Jay Windley was in. I mean the groupies would be plain nasty.....

[Bob B.]

Drat, we never got to the Van Allen Belts.

[dwight]

Did anyone count the actual number of "Jays" and "Mr Windleys" he posted in total. Or which post contained the most of said terms?

[Bob B.]

Did anyone count the actual number of "Jays" and "Mr Windleys" he posted in total. Or which post contained the most of said terms?

I didn't care for that at all.  He hides behind an alias, even stating that he wanted to stay anonymous, yet he doesn't hesitate to post the last names of others.  I have no problem with people knowing who I am, but he shouldn't be the decider of that.

[Zakalwe]

I wouldn't worry about it too much. He came here with an obnoxious attitude, insulted as many people as possible whilst whining about ad hom attacks, had a hard-on for Jay and then flounced to disappear back into the ooze.

The hoaxtards really are looking increasingly like a spent force. With apologies to gillianren, but the remainders of that community are increasingly looking to consist of a few stragglers that display some pretty significant emotional (possibly mental) instabilities. Look at the last few on here...Romulus, AwE130, Allan Weisbecker and Neil Burns. All displayed the same characteristics- bounce in all puffed up, rapidly revert to name-calling and whining about being prosecuted (someone hacked my computer! Sheesh ) and then flounced out in a fit of spittle-flecked hatred. All without the slightest intention of looking at the evidence that's been thrust under their snouts.

More to be pitied than laughed at.

[gillianren]

I have to tell you, aside from the dislike I have for armchair diagnoses, I really don't like the term "hoaxtard."  The clinical term "retarded" is getting phased out in favour of several wordy variations because "retarded" is such an insult now.  Further, I honestly don't believe these people are stupid, necessarily.  (I grant you there have been exceptions!)  Certainly they don't have any sort of developmental disability.  I could write a paper about the psychology of these people, but stupidity would (almost) never enter into it.

And besides, it just gives them ammunition if we go for petty insults.  Trust me--the one time we had an actual "appeal to the lurkers," it became readily apparent that we didn't have to in order to convince anyone, and not a single lurker posted to say they'd been convinced by the conspiracist.  I do, however, agree that the die-hard conspiracists are to be pitied, if for no other reason than that they cannot see the wonder and beauty of one of the most outstanding accomplishments in human history.

[nomuse]

You know, every once in a while, I just wonder if they can even read my posts.

They love to talk meta-argument, but as with so many things, they are bad at it. So bad they not only can't understand them when others make them, they can't even grasp that one is being made.

[gillianren]

And I mean, I understand why I don't have the same obsessive pull for these people that Jay and Bob and Phil do.  The most precise I would get would be correcting their spelling and grammar (and why is it usually so awful?).  However, it really does seem that, as soon as they work out that Andromeda and I are (gasp!) women, they just stop responding to us altogether.  I've even had one or two people make it explicit and tell me to let the menfolk talk. 

I would also say, honestly, that as precise and technical as the arguments get--and I do appreciate the knowledge base it takes to get them that technical--my own main request, every time, is a pretty decent example of why they'll never convince anyone who actually understands how science works.  Because my primary request is always for the numbers, and they never respond to it.

[smartcooky]

I wouldn't worry about it too much. He came here with an obnoxious attitude, insulted as many people as possible whilst whining about ad hom attacks, had a hard-on for Jay and then flounced to disappear back into the ooze.

The hoaxtards really are looking increasingly like a spent force. With apologies to gillianren, but the remainders of that community are increasingly looking to consist of a few stragglers that display some pretty significant emotional (possibly mental) instabilities. Look at the last few on here...Romulus, Adrian AwE130, Allan Weisbecker and Neil Burns. All displayed the same characteristics- bounce in all puffed up, rapidly revert to name-calling and whining about being prosecuted (someone hacked my computer! Sheesh ) and then flounced out in a fit of spittle-flecked hatred. All without the slightest intention of looking at the evidence that's been thrust under their snouts.

More to be pitied than laughed at.

Yep, and every one of them that comes here and acts in that fashion creates an indelible record to be viewed by those who might be on the fence and lurking here. When we take up their challenge and expose their dishonesty, their arrogance and their stupidity, it is the undecided who benefit the most.

[Zakalwe]

aside from the dislike I have for armchair diagnoses
.
.
.
.
Certainly they don't have any sort of developmental disability.  I could write a paper about the psychology of these people, but stupidity would (almost) never enter into it.

Unless you have met them and carried out a clinical diagnoses then you have just done an armchair diagnoses.

Stupidity is defined (albeit by Wikipedia) as "a lack of...    ...understanding, reason, wit or sense". That seems to sum up some of the recent hoax believers that we have seen on here. Indeed, many of them would do well to learn Cipollas Laws of Stupidity

• Always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.
• The probability that a certain person (will) be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.
• A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.
• Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places and under any circumstances to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.
• A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.

I get your point about "hoaxtards", but I don't necessarily agree with it as I consider wilful ignorance as the most cowardly of intellectual failings. I do dislike the phrases "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorists" immensely, as 99.999% of the garbage that they spout would never fit the description of a theory. Heck, most of it barely fits the definition of a hypothesis.