Buzz Aldrin salutes U.S flag.

[Luke Pemberton]

True. The CT proponents will often apply self contradictory arguments to different photos and arguments which do not apply regardless of where exactly, moon or earth, the photos were taken. As far as I can make out (and it's a stretch) the claim with this particular image is that the "fakers" forgot to add the flag shadow thus proving "fakery".

Where, exactly, does this leave the claimant? Were some, all or none of the shadows faked? Why would that be necessary? Or even desired? Why would the supposed "fakers" fake any shadows at all? Why not simply photograph the shadows as they were? How would the supposedly godlike "fakers" incompetently miss such a thing?

A well thought out reply. I (and others) have conveyed these points before, and coupled with all the other aspects of Apollo, the lack of continuity errors across a vast record lays waste to their argument. For me, once the C-rock was thrown into the mix, their game was rumbled. I mean, what utter numb skull thought they could pass that idea off as a starter. It also takes a real clown to keep that one alive and produce YouTube videos with dramatisations of the C-rock discovery.

And so on. The whole notion is more full of holes than a Swiss cheese.

I quite like Swiss cheese though.

[Abaddon]

A well thought out reply. I (and others) have conveyed these points before, and coupled with all the other aspects of Apollo, the lack of continuity errors across a vast record lays waste to their argument. For me, once the C-rock was thrown into the mix, their game was rumbled. I mean, what utter numb skull thought they could pass that idea off as a starter. It also takes a real clown to keep that one alive and produce YouTube videos with dramatisations of the C-rock discovery.

The good old C-rock. I have never been able to fathom which is the more idiotic. Those who propose it or those who swallow it wholesale.

[Luke Pemberton]

The good old C-rock. I have never been able to fathom which is the more idiotic. Those who propose it or those who swallow it wholesale.

Yes, it's a bit like what came first? The chicken or the egg?

[JayUtah]

I understand that Ralph Rene was not that complimentary of Bill Kaysing.

If I'm the source for that understanding then the target of Rene's vehemence was David Percy, whom Rene accused of stealing his material and making money off of it -- money that he says rightly should have gone to him.  It went so far as Rene refusing to appear on any conspiracy program in which Percy was involved.

[Luke Pemberton]

If I'm the source for that understanding then the target of Rene's vehemence was David Percy, whom Rene accused of stealing his material and making money off of it -- money that he says rightly should have gone to him.  It went so far as Rene refusing to appear on any conspiracy program in which Percy was involved.

This is new to me. Was Ralph Rene a little disparaging towards Bill Kaysing's intial manuscript, feeling it could be bettered with some 'proper' science?

[JayUtah]

This is new to me. Was Ralph Rene a little disparaging towards Bill Kaysing's intial manuscript, feeling it could be bettered with some 'proper' science?

Yes, but I gather Rene held enough respect for Kaysing to suggest only that his material needed improvement.  Appropriate, since Kaysing came first and it can be argued Rene stole much of that material.  But Rene's attitude toward Percy was one of unbridled vitriol, and specifically directed at Percy's alleged appropriation of the market for Rene's book.

[Luke Pemberton]

This is new to me. Was Ralph Rene a little disparaging towards Bill Kaysing's intial manuscript, feeling it could be bettered with some 'proper' science?

Yes, but I gather Rene held enough respect for Kaysing to suggest only that his material needed improvement.  Appropriate, since Kaysing came first and it can be argued Rene stole much of that material.  But Rene's attitude toward Percy was one of unbridled vitriol, and specifically directed at Percy's alleged appropriation of the market for Rene's book.

My understanding on this matter is improved David Percy was simply a much better salesman than Ralph, and Ralph disliked this? That does not surprise me given that David Percy looks like he could sell ice to the eskimos and sand to the Arabs.

[gillianren]

For goodness sake, how do you take that picture, on the Moon or on Earth, with literally no shadow, if everything else has shadows? 

[Peter B]

For goodness sake, how do you take that picture, on the Moon or on Earth, with literally no shadow, if everything else has shadows?

Presumably by manipulation of the photo - inserting the flagpole into the picture, but not a shadow.

And HBs do like the idea of photo manipulation - such as with the disappearing crosshairs - so the idea of sticking a flagpole into a picture would make sense to them.

The lack of a shadow would be, to David Percy, one of those whistleblows by some NASA insider trying to get a message out.

[Luke Pemberton]

Presumably by manipulation of the photo - inserting the flagpole into the picture, but not a shadow.

And HBs do like the idea of photo manipulation - such as with the disappearing crosshairs - so the idea of sticking a flagpole into a picture would make sense to them.

Some are so far removed from reality it's a wonder if they think they live in a Matrix type world.

The lack of a shadow would be, to David Percy, one of those whistleblows by some NASA insider trying to get a message out.

The secret cryptic message.

[Kiwi]

Hello. Can someone explain why I dont see the shadow of the flag and the pole in this photo?

If hoax-believers ask that, ask if they have studied the 16mm movie film of the same event, because the flagpole is perfectly clear there.

Forty-two seconds into this video, Buzz raises his right arm to salute the flag and holds it up until 0:01:02.

A few things worth noting:

1. From the movie camera's angle, Buzz is directly behind the flagpole.
2. The pole end of the top of the flag reaches to his visor.
3. The flagpole's shadow is clearly visible on the lunar surface.
4. The top of the flag's shadow is about level with the shadow of the top of Buzz's PLSS (as viewed from the sun's position).
5. The bottom of the flag's shadow is about level with Buzz's right elbow when his hand is down, showing that it is way beyond where the shadows of his legs meet.
6. Part of the shadow of Buzz's left side, at about hip and waist level, disappears into a small, deep crater.
7. The bottom front edge of the flag swings slightly for about 20 seconds after Neil Armstrong last touched it prior to the start of the clip.

There's a much more common 16mm still frame of the Apollo 11 flag-raising, where the length of the shadows of the two astronauts differ considerably and so become fuel for HBs' beliefs. But a little knowledge of the landing site and observation of the film shows that Armstrong's shadow becomes elongated because it falls into a large but shallow crater to the west of the flag, and Aldrin's shadow doesn't. Also, when both astronauts move to the right of the movie frame, their shadows fall on level ground and are, naturally, of similar length.

One "curiosity" of HBs in AS11-40-5874 (above) is the elongated footprint below centre, which is longer than all other prints and at right angles to them, and has no companion footprints to its front or rear. It was a great "mystery" about ten years ago, until someone suggested the HBs view the movie film and note that as Neil Armstrong carried the video camera out to its final resting place, he stepped sideways a few times in that vicinity, and later activity covered up most of the other prints.

And the odd length of the footprint? It just happened to be made from two of his sideways steps, one on top of the other.