The MOON HOAX

[reel.deal]

Mythbusters Moon Hoax Flag Flapping

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhab86KoVjU



all these mythbusters clips 'prove' Apollo went to the moon... x6.

[reel.deal]

APOLLO 11: PROOF OF MOON LANDING

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MunPi3ifqpw



You just gotta love all these NA$A hoax mythbusters carefree & joyful blindness to irony...
This Apollo 11 flag wrestling clip is speeded up x36 to prove that the desert duststorm had
passed, & that all frogs, desert rats, hares, & tumbleweeds had been cleared from the area.
even more impressive is how the sun cast spaceman 1s shadow twice the length of spaceman 2.
size does matter NASA, no matter what the nicest girls say...

[pov603]

Only a fool or a communist would associate not coming into contact with another body of mass on the moon and not causing it to move [like astro-nots on dusty surfaces in a 1/6 g vacuum] than coming into contact with another body of mass on the moon and causing it to move [like astro-nots planting flags in a 1/6 g vacuum]...
I am now off to eat some boiled pizza...

[lux]

I've always thought the biggest give-away from the Apollo "moon" footage was the slow-motion photography.

Why would someone in an alleged low gravity environment move in slow motion?

I could understand falling objects moving slower but why would ALL motions be slowed down? Doesn't make sense to me. I would think that some movements would be slower but others would be normal speed or faster than normal. But, there was no way to produce such an effect at that time so I presume they opted for the slow-mo gag.

Also - if it's true that Kubrick was involved in the Apollo motion picture footage then there is another oddity related to this. In his "2001: A Space Odyssey" movie there was one scene where men were shown walking on the moon (the scene with the moon monolith excavation site). But, in that scene the actors did not move in slow motion. I wonder if they thought it might look too much like the Apollo footage and thus raise suspicion?

[simonshack]

Thanks reel deal,

- for linking that "PROOF OF MOON LANDING" video (and for your excellent take on the astronot's shadows).

I always love it when we can use the aspiring Moon Hoax debunkers' own proposed NASA imagery to prove the fraudulence of the same. No wonder that they want you to look/focus at the popular FLAG FLAPPING issues - when the major problems of this imagery are of entirely different nature - i.e. the obvious STUDIO LIGHTING of these images. It is the age-old sleight of hand magicians' trick - "look here, look here!" - to divert the audience's attention away from what really matters, namely - the shadows featured in this NASA footage:

[wording of original image comparison currently being revised for clarity]

This is of course but one example of the innumerable problems with the NASA "moon imagery". But it alone constitutes solid, empirical evidence of fraud - beyond any shadow of doubt (pun intended). To be sure, it is technically court-admissible as it meets the legal requirements for any submitted proof to be demonstrable, repeatable - and for the authenticity (or, more correctly, provenance) of its sources to be verifiable. Since the claim of authenticity of the moon imagery is upheld by NASA, the burden of proof is on NASA to defend their claim against the vast body of (scientifically impeccable) evidence of fraud now at hand.

So once again, let me go with my pet quote: "The sun does not lie." (And yes, I am 100% certain of that!)

[Jonathan]

Unfortunately it is not a good example.
Shadows will indeed not change length while an object moves about in a horizontal plane.

The sun shines.
Studio lights kinda shine too.

Simon, what you refer to is hard to see and deeply in the shadow of doubt. The ground is not supposed to be flat.
reel.deal pointed to something different.

If it was a pretty close studio light illuminating the scene, shadows would get longer the farther any object gets away from it and shorter when it comes near it.
With the sun as a source you would not notice anything. All that on a flat surface.

We see something different.
More like the opposite to the effect of a studio light would have in flat environment.
The shadows lengths are changing, but not in accordance with distance to the lightsource.

One immediately obvious way to explain this in any case is: the slightly brighter left side is uphill and shadows projected on it appear shorter than the same projected at a nearly flat surface foreground.
Or maybe the foreground is slightly uphill towards the right while the upper left is flat - same effect and for any one light source, be it sun or artificial.

I'm not saying that this was shot on the claimed location, I'm saying it's not a good example to try to prove it with the arguments given.

[nonhocapito]

One immediately obvious way to explain this in any case is: the slightly brighter left side is uphill and shadows projected on it appear shorter than the same projected at a nearly flat surface foreground.
Or maybe the foreground is slightly uphill towards the right while the upper left is flat - same effect and for any one light source, be it sun or artificial.

Yes there seems to be a slope between the two astronots: from right to left, at first slightly uphill, then slightly downhill (for all we know these should cancel each other out) the uphill again, this time a bit more strongly. However, the differences in shadow length are too considerable to be accounted on that slight slope in natural light. I think that such a dramatic change can only be explained with a close, artificial light source.

[reel.deal]

maybe the flag shadow curves slightly suggesting 'uphill', but with both actor-nots virtually in line
with each other, and their parallel straight shadows with no 'upward' curve, Armstrong & Aldrin
are obviously under a light source nearer 60 yards away rather than 93 million miles away...

[simonshack]

Armstrong & Aldrin are obviously under a light source nearer 60 yards away rather than 93 million miles away...[/color][/i]

Thanks again, reel deal - for your unfailing common sense!

Let's patiently wait for Jonathan's results of his self-illuminating experiments with spotlights and shadows!

[Jonathan]

... May I ask on which planet you live, Jonathan? ...

I don't think the internet is connecting us between different worlds or planets.
If you call planet Earth your home than that would be my answer, too.

Do you have a spotlight in your home? Switch it on and put your arm between the light - and a wall (or floor). Now move your arm closer to the light. What do you observe? Does your arm's shadow get shorter or longer? Smaller or larger?

I was only pointing out the - to me - obvious. No disrespect! Actually, very much to the contrary!
I feel a bit silly to actually answer the question literally and I already stated what will happen in my post, but here I go:
move object closer to the light and its shadow will get shorter

Important: from the two choices (wall or floor) I picked the floor - as in the scenery of the video where the light comes in at maybe 30 - 40 degree above the horizon ... quite low

@reel: sorry, but further up you where specifically pointing out the double length shadow of the closer figure

[reel.deal]

true, i still dont get it. why is spaceman 1 shadow double length of spaceman 2 ?
when i first looked at it, i thought - maybe the ground falls away, or raises up
in gradient, but then; as the flag shadow shows 'some' curvature; 'short-shadow'
of spaceman 2 should show some curvature too, which it doesnt. which is why the
grounds rise or fall does not account for the disparate shadow lengths.
sunlight ? or floodlit spotlight...

[Jonathan]

@reel:
Wherever this was taken - it is a matter of ground curvature.
I did not even notice a curvature in the flagpoles shadow. Which actually is there - it is extending first downhill, then uphill.
The double length shadow occurs because the far one is cast uphill while the closer (to the light) one is cast downhill.

experiment: take a small object
(I had a coin handy which I held upright; it was actually a real Penny which I took out of my purse the day before because noone here seemed to accept it as valid currency in Euro-Germany );
turn on the lamp on your desktop; put the object to your desk in front of it; move the object away from the lamp and observe the shadow

then take a sheet of cardboard; put the object to it while the cardboard lays flat on the desk; then lift the far edge (away from lamp) ...

point is: this would occur regardless if the light was the sun or artificial - it is the the uneven surface which produces the effect
- the properties of which (the surface) are unknown - apart from the oral history ...
... which then in turn does not make it a good example to point out fakery, let alone a proof, for the properties of the surface are not only unknown but also irrelevant to the explanation in this case - more importantly: artificial lighting cannot be deduced from it

[reel.deal]

hmm, i'm holding a lighter on an envelope & the further away they are from the light,
the longer the shadow. not shorter.
...what sort of massive '30/60/90 degrees incline' hill are we talking about ?
that the Lunar Module just missed landing on, & rolling down the side of...
cause the rest of the photos show a relatively flat-ish surface; in fact; reminiscent of a... sand pit,
like a bunch of sand dumped in a studio...
so, we'll have to agree to differ; grounds relatively flat, spaceman 2 shadow should be longer if anything,
not half the size of spaceman 1. whatever...


whatever the shadow lengths betray, i find it way more interesting that the 'sunlight' only falls approx
100 metres either side of the LEM, spacemans lucky they never fell over the horizons...
yeah... the sun only shone on a 200 metre long strip... sure !!!




the moon just looks so boring in the same ol' grey, b&w, or hand-tinted sepia...

[reel.deal]

base camp in the valley at the foothills of the Apollo 11 flag...
ski sunday slalom.

http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/apollo.html

[simonshack]

Unexplicable shadow lenghts on moon explained by NASA scientists... "it's because it's very rocky and hilly!"

http://curiosity.discovery.com/question ... n-pictures

"Conspiracy theorists believe that the differing shadow lengths of the astronauts are inconsistencies resulting from faulty lighting sources. However, NASA scientists explain that the terrain on the moon is very rocky and hilly, causing uneven shadows as a result. A similar result would occur in photos taken on a snow-covered hill."