"The Truth Behind the Moon Landings" is on You Tube

[smartcooky]

The claim is that it proves there were multiple light sources.

Some claim it proves multiple light sources.  Others claim it proves nearby light sources.  It varies from photo to photo and from claimant to claimant.

I agree, but while divergent shadows might be explained by a single nearby light source, that would not hold for convergent shadows.

Also, if the light source were nearby, the fall-off would be dramatic and easily observable, something that was readily apparent on your film set (although not mentioned in the video) and not seen on any of the Apollo photos of the Lunar landscape .

[Cat Not Included]

Thanks for pointing this out Kiwi. I watched in the other day; fairly interesting, though I found it more interesting for the stray info and clips about Apollo than for the hoax stuff.

It did feel like they introduced some hoax claims and then didn't address them, which seemed a bit odd. Anyone know if some of it was edited for time?

Most items were addressed very well though, with nice graphic demonstrations about the light on the flag, the stars and the shadows.

[JayUtah]

It was edited for many reasons.  They only used about half the stuff they shot with me, but that's typical in any film production.

More importantly, documentaries are shot moving from speaker to speaker, shooting all that speaker's statements at once.  Ralph Rene's contribution, for example, was shot after mine.  So I couldn't have responded to anything he brought up.  Keep in mind that when the final cut is done, it jumps between speakers in a way that suggests they all know what the other people said.  In most cases they don't.  In contrast, the unaired History Channel pilot shot Rene's segment before mine, and asked me specifically to respond to his claims.  I heard and saw everything he said, including the parts they judiciously left out.

[bknight]

It was edited for many reasons.  They only used about half the stuff they shot with me, but that's typical in any film production.

More importantly, documentaries are shot moving from speaker to speaker, shooting all that speaker's statements at once.  Ralph Rene's contribution, for example, was shot after mine.  So I couldn't have responded to anything he brought up.  Keep in mind that when the final cut is done, it jumps between speakers in a way that suggests they all know what the other people said.  In most cases they don't.  In contrast, the unaired History Channel pilot shot Rene's segment before mine, and asked me specifically to respond to his claims.  I heard and saw everything he said, including the parts they judiciously left out.

It is really sad that Allen, Percy and/or Sibral won't participate in a live recorded debate.  But I guess their financial downside would preclude that from happening.

[Rob260259]

I am never so frustrated when I see people who are so blatantly ignorant of the physical world around them, as I am when people start talking about shadows not being parallel. This is, to me, by far, the single most stupid thing to call proof.

The most obvious piece of stupidity surrounding this is that the presence of non-parallel shadows actually proves the opposite of what HB nutters claim it proves. The claim is that it proves there were multiple light sources. In fact, even if the moon landing photos WERE faked in a studio somewhere, non-parallel shadows is not evidence of this. Multiple light sources MUST lead to multiple shadows, so the smoking gun for fake lunar photographs would be multiple shadows.

Of course, there are none in any of the lunar. photos

This is one of my favorite answers to the ignorance of hoax nuts:

[JayUtah]

It is really sad that Allen, Percy...

Allen and Percy were both explicitly invited to participate in this program, but refused.  Percy later tried to rebut some of it at the AULIS website.

and/or Sibral...

Sibrel was approached, but demanded an exorbitant "appearance fee" which the producers declined to pay.  Sibrel later lied and claimed he had actually contributed, but that none of his material was included because it could not be rebutted.

[Cat Not Included]

It was edited for many reasons.  They only used about half the stuff they shot with me, but that's typical in any film production.

More importantly, documentaries are shot moving from speaker to speaker, shooting all that speaker's statements at once.  Ralph Rene's contribution, for example, was shot after mine.  So I couldn't have responded to anything he brought up.  Keep in mind that when the final cut is done, it jumps between speakers in a way that suggests they all know what the other people said.  In most cases they don't.  In contrast, the unaired History Channel pilot shot Rene's segment before mine, and asked me specifically to respond to his claims.  I heard and saw everything he said, including the parts they judiciously left out.

Ah, thanks for the response Jay! That makes sense.

My wife watched this with me. It was interesting to get her take on things, as she's only vaguely heard me talk about some of this stuff and hasn't really been exposed to it. When they mentioned the prototype lander crashing and Rene (was it Rene?) was saying that meant it couldn't be done she shouted at the screen something along the long lines of "You idiot, do you know what PROTOTYPE means and why you build prototypes first?"

[smartcooky]

My wife watched this with me. It was interesting to get her take on things, as she's only vaguely heard me talk about some of this stuff and hasn't really been exposed to it. When they mentioned the prototype lander crashing and Rene (was it Rene?) was saying that meant it couldn't be done she shouted at the screen something along the long lines of "You idiot, do you know what PROTOTYPE means and why you build prototypes first?"

Incisive woman your wife, on both counts.

Of course, what Rene also failed to mention was that gravity and air currents make a lot of difference. Anyone who has flown a helicopter in blustery conditions will know exactly what i mean

[bknight]

My wife watched this with me. It was interesting to get her take on things, as she's only vaguely heard me talk about some of this stuff and hasn't really been exposed to it. When they mentioned the prototype lander crashing and Rene (was it Rene?) was saying that meant it couldn't be done she shouted at the screen something along the long lines of "You idiot, do you know what PROTOTYPE means and why you build prototypes first?"

The HB's fail to note that all the astronauts trained on the LLTV with only three failures?

[Allan F]

Wasn't a prototype. The LLTV and LLRV weren't even built by Grumman. They were research and training tools for vertical landing.

[bknight]

Wasn't a prototype. The LLTV and LLRV weren't even built by Grumman. They were research and training tools for vertical landing.

Didn't Neil indicate that his training helped a lot when he came  to the actual landing?

[Ishkabibble]

IIRC, twice, that I know of. Once in the post-mission debrief, and once in the post-mission press conference. I seem to recall seeing a televised interview with him several years ago, with Ed Bradley on 60 Minutes, where he mentioned it too.

At least I think I remember it.

At my age, the memory is the second thing to go.

[bknight]

...

At my age, the memory is the second thing to go.

I believe the affliction ailment is CRS

[Ishkabibble]

...

At my age, the memory is the second thing to go.

I believe the affliction ailment is CRS

What were we talking about?

[bknight]

...

At my age, the memory is the second thing to go.

I believe the affliction ailment is CRS

What were we talking about?

Exactly