Moon Landings: Did They Happen or Not?

[Joe]

To summarize; the claim that one light source (aka. the sun) can not produce all the effects that can be seen in the moon pictures/videos has been completely disproven. Both the angle issue of the shadows and the overlapping of shadows are completely natural phenomena that one light source alone, aka the sun, can and will produce, no matter how hard you try to deny it.

This is what bugs me. People will argue until the cows come home that something is evidence of something else when they have NO CLUE what they are talking about, but have no clue they have no clue. It's a basic lack of ability/inclination towards self-questioning at work. They'll look at a shadow cast by a light source and because of their assumptions and lack of knowledge, they conclude something 'isn't right' and then run with it and build a castle in the air (and the live in it in some cases). They are full of skepticism about 'official stories' but lack any about their own assertions and beliefs.

Since one of the most popular 'memes' that argue for the fake moon landings is the 'wrong shadows' in NASA images of the event, and since it is easily proven (as Pashalis has shown) that those memes are complete BS, any rational person should then question everything they think they know about the 'fake moon landings' and take it as a lesson to always engage in the same questioning when considering other similar claims. Will people do it? Maybe, maybe not.

 

[Joe]

So Joe, the correct answer must be "They landed" ?

If you say so.

Holy Smokes, I am starting to feel like I landed on the Moon !!!

You're certainly 'out there', IMO. When you look up at the sky at night, do you see the moon? If not, it's fairly certain that you're on it. At least, that's what my intuition tells me.

 

[Glenn]

So I am to "work" on myself to rid myself of the belief that the Moon Landing is a hoax ? That is the purpose of the Forum ? Now that is some revelation for me.

Well bless your heart for that clarification.

No one is asking you to rid yourself of that belief. At least not from what I have read.

It does seem that your belief has turned into a sacred cow, as you get pretty bent out of shape if people challenge it, or give other viewpoints.

Can you see that the moon mission being a hoax is really just one possibility, another possibility being that the mission was carried out as documented? Another possibility is that it was carried out, but someone or some agency thought it useful to put it out there that it was fake, to muddy the waters and get people off track, and chasing shadows.

I think if you can take things from being black and white, to where you see there are a lot of nuances, you will be at a better place with your beliefs.

So no, not necessary for us, or anyone to have you rid yourself of beliefs, (if that could be done anyways), but for you to get yourself to the place where you are able to see any issue from many sides.

And lastly, ask yourself, in the big picture, how important is it to hold on to any such belief.

 

[1peacelover]

As someone who worked in media productions, we the populace are lied to constantly for probably longer than we know. Start with who controls this layer of our matrix. It is my observation that everything is a stage.

 

[luc]

Thanks but no thanks for the "recommendation" Luc. I'm just fine where I am and see no reason to do anything like what is suggested above.

The topic here I believe is "Moon Landing" with a clear implication of discussing whether it was or was not a hoax. Not how I should think or not think about it. In my opinion you and others are far too strongly attached to what you think is the right answer. The tone that I'm picking up here from some is mighty "condescending" but hey, that's just poor 'ol me. But that's Life, I decide not others how I interpret the World.

It's rather sad to see how you are so identified with your pet theory to the point that you are even incapable of entertaining a simple thought, even without believing it's true, and seem revolted by the very idea of entertaining such a thought. In other words, you allowed yourself to BECOME the moon landing hoax. It's you! No wonder, then, that you feel "slurred" and attacked if someone questions it - it is you.

We have seen such dynamics going on again and again, both in ourselves and countless others who behaved in precisely the same way as you do here. Rest assured that this is so blatantly obvious that it's almost comical you can't see it. You call that "condescending", which is just another display of this obvious fact, as is your pseudo-revolution against what you perceive to be oppressive authority.

 

[mrtn]

@Pashalis, I would like to see the LED/lamp you used. Does it have multiple LEDs and/or reflectors that could cause multiple shadows? If you rotate the lamp, do the shadow formations also rotate?
A penumbra caused by a wide homogeneous light source like the sun would not cause a single additional shadow shifted in a certain direction but would blur the shadow all around. A penumbra also would lighten up towards the outer edge and darken towards the umbra. It's not really like this:


but rather like this:



That the double shadows are a result of a studio production is not convincing to me, that would be just to stupid. But I have also doubts that the sun alone could cause them. Either other reflecting objects of the equipment act as additional light sources, or earthshine, or there were literally other light sources present that we are not supposed to know about. Maybe these latter one could have also caused an antumbra that resulted in multiple shadows(?)

 

[Possibility of Being]

That the double shadows are a result of a studio production is not convincing to me, that would be just to stupid. But I have also doubts that the sun alone could cause them. Either other reflecting objects of the equipment act as additional light sources, or earthshine, or there were literally other light sources present that we are not supposed to know about. Maybe these latter one could have also caused an antumbra that resulted in multiple shadows(?)

That day was the fifth day after new moon. If I understand it correctly, it would mean that (solar) night on that side of the Moon was just ending and the day was dawning; and there was more or less 'full earth' there, so to say (which is huge when seen from there, something like 30 times bigger than the moon on our sky if I'm not mistaken). If so, then probably Earth would be the main source of light and perhaps the dawn secondary that would produce shadows.

The site where I found the moon phase for that particular day offers another explanation of the shadow phenomena:

Moon Landing Hoax Conspiracy

The moon landing: A hoax or conspiracy? Did the American astronauts really land on the moon?

www.moonconnection.com

Shadows on the Moon

One of the arguments from skeptics to substantiate the moon landing hoax theory involves the shadows that illuminated from the lunar surface when the pictures that were sent back to us. They argue that if this is not a hoax, why is it that facts about the moon state there are no shadows in space. This argument about this moon landing hoax comes from believers that feel the sun is the only source of light in the universe. When you think of the moon, you must consider that the sun is not the only source of light on the moon and that the lunar surface reflects its own light which illuminates all things on the surface. Therefore, shadows on the moon do not provide evidence of a moon landing hoax.

FWIW

 

[genero81]

A while ago when I was in Arizona a local radio station had Buzz Aldrin on the morning talk show which was a surprise (at least to me) At the time I think I was leaning towards the hoax position, but Buzz seemed pretty genuine. I remember thinking; if the whole thing was really a hoax, why come on a radio station to talk about it at all, so many years later?

Just so happens I came across a Netflix documentary on Bob Lazar yesterday that I watched. It has Mickey Roarke narrating some interesting quotes which gives it an interesting flavor. Seemed pretty clear that Bob has been telling the truth which would mean we've had technology capable of going much further than the moon for a while. That fact (if it is indeed a fact) makes the whole; did we really go to the moon? thing nothing more than a distraction. IMO

 

[Hi_Henry]

It's rather sad to see how you are so identified with your pet theory to the point that you are even incapable of entertaining a simple thought, even without believing it's true, and seem revolted by the very idea of entertaining such a thought.

Are you forgetting what I wrote next in my comment ?

I've been on the "other side" on numerous contentious historical debates AND AFTER looking at new information or new ways to interpret the old , changed sides at times. So ya'll excuse me but I'm just fine where I stand on this here Moon Walk partner

I think it is a hoax.

So I had at one time entertaining that thought for a considerable time. I not sure why that is not clear. I basically said the same thing here,
comment

Yes, once upon a time I was on the side “We Landed On the Moon”. To the point of constructing a Saturn V model which proudly stood on my study desk while in grade school. In 8th grade with great joy I would do research projects in science class. What did I chose as my subject ? Space Exploration. Whose info was I using ? NASA documents that our Central Library had. That activity helped me to spend more time at the library which was a plus from the Space Program. To get even closer to the subject I started to fly model rockets. I was on that side and the "hoaxers" were already active at the time to boot !!!

Then after University and years of working outside that normal “living box” that most experience I started to have my World View reoriented. Such things happen when you work among different cultures and learn their language in some cases. It was a gradual process. So as to no turn this into a chapter in a book I'll try to point out some bullet points describing what re-orientated me away from “The Official Story”..

1) Arms race with USSR was due to the fact that USSR was ahead in nucs. Complete BS fabricated by the CIA.
2) Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh was overthrown as it was feared the Communist would take over. Nope, it was a coup orchestrated by the CIA as Mossadegh wanted to keep more oil profits in his country.
3) Vietnam war was fought because “Dominoes” were falling which could lead to Communism ruling the World. Nope, more BS.
4) JFK was assassinated by Oswald after two 90 degree sharp turns (a no-no rule in the SS book) on the streets of Dallas. Utter BS.
5) RFK who was shot at close range (inches) in the head by Sirhan who was feet away. Laughable once you know some facts. Another BS story.
6) Creationism, flat-earth, Putin controls US elections, .... all memes created by Social Engineers to keep the sheep busy and make it easy to shut down any dissent to boot. Those gave me clues that the ballot box is for kids.

"Official Story" is best handled with care is what I learned.

Then I read some debate about the Moon Shot. After doing some research I came to the conclusion that something about that landing part stank. I'm not going to get into details how/why but will end this tortured discussion on the Moon Landing this way.

In 2009 NASA sent Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter to the Moon. The technology we have today is at an unbelievable level compared to 1969. 1969 was Stone Age. To quash the questioning of the Landing was unbelievably simple. Fly low and take the highest resolution photos possible. Wiki for LRO shows that their primary work was done at 50 km above the surface. Then for special work they were flying 20 km. I suspect the landing site photos are at 50 but am not sure. Nevertheless, so what do we get from NASA as the best pictures ever? At 50 km and no atmosphere we get this pathetic photo ? Give me a break NASA.



No sense getting into a discussion about this photo but I don't think this is “the best” when on Earth with an atmosphere with satellites 100's of km away they can see golf balls. I know, they sent a cheaper camera on the LRO which was good enough for government work. Nothing but the best for the Public.

“DigitalGlobe is the first company to deliver 30cm resolution imagery, delivering clearer, richer images that empower informed decision-making. “

Being the curious one led me also to find the source of this flat-earth meme popping up in this thread. So I did a search and found the flat-earth discussion which I had forgotten existed here though I do recall seeing it. Eyes Wide Open I noticed that it ran to 31 pages. Amazing <----- %32(&

What I find striking there is the laissez faire approach to how it was managed. Man, it was like day and night as compared to how the current discussion has been handled. Free flow of ideas, no innuendoes or talking from the mountain. Just a discussion.

How did it end ? It died a natural death with Laura's last comment in 2017. It was resurrected in 2018 by someone similar to Brewer. However, again it was allowed to just die a natural death. End of story.

But in the Moon Landing discussion at one point there was no such thing, IMHO. A group felt some push back as well as perhaps feeling being personally attacked resulting in things coming down to nuanced comments. Funny why that didn't happen with the Flat-Earth discussion ? But those who have their thinking caps on straight can figure it out with no problem if they check it out.

 

[Joe]

In other words, you allowed yourself to BECOME the moon landing hoax. It's you! No wonder, then, that you feel "slurred" and attacked if someone questions it - it is you.

People have a strong and personal attachment to their ideas, theories, beliefs because they provide a certain amount of stability and certainty in the face of a complex and nuanced world where the truth is often not simple and not finite. Faced with this complexity and the unknown, most people adopt certain world views and then hold on to them like their sanity depended on it, and in a sense it may well do. So it's not surprising that some people are very identified with beliefs as we're seeing here. Such strong attachment to beliefs IS a problem though in the scenario where those beliefs are suddenly and unequivocally exposed as entirely false.

So training yourself to be open to doubting your own theories and beliefs and to be able to change them when new data comes in, and to always keep in mind that you undoubtedly don't have the whole story, is a very good way to not only increase your own thinking abilities and knowledge, but to hedge your bets against having your sacred cows unceremoniously thrown to the ground, which can be quite traumatic, depending on the circumstances.

 

[SlipNet]

The Van Halen belt? LOL! Now I imagine the moon footage with "Jump" playing in the background. One giant leap for mankind indeed!

In all seriousness though, I actually think they did go to the moon, but perhaps saw more of interest than they bargained on, and this is why they've been so cagey about things ever since. Given the track record of the PTB, this seems to me the most logical summary I can think of.

This has been a very interesting thread though, as it has shed light on different thought patterns and ideas clashing, without things getting out of hand and mean spirited. A testimony to the robust nature of feedback on the forum!

 

[mrtn]

So here I am trying again with a different hosting service...

https://flic.kr/p/2gEnE4U

That didn't work yesterday. Now I watched it and it is very convincing, thanks!

That day was the fifth day after new moon. If I understand it correctly, it would mean that (solar) night on that side of the Moon was just ending and the day was dawning; and there was more or less 'full earth' there, so to say (which is huge when seen from there, something like 30 times bigger than the moon on our sky if I'm not mistaken). If so, then probably Earth would be the main source of light and perhaps the dawn secondary that would produce shadows.

In the the following video he says '13 times the area in the sky' (which makes sense when looking up 'earth vs moon' pictures)

That's still large, but: If all of that earth would be illuminated as seen from moon, i.e. 'full earth', then sun and earth would be on opposite sides in the sky, which also means the shadows caused by each would be in opposite directions. Apollo 11 moon phase was waxing crescent (from here), which I think would make the earth appear as 'half earth' or a little bit more/fuller. But to have a double shadow with only a slight variation in angle, the earth and the sun would need to be very close together in the sky, which in turn would make earth a very thin sickle/crescent, so it's area in the sky as a light source is much smaller, though that doesn't mean much because earths oceans can be be very reflective.

the sun is not the only source of light on the moon and that the lunar surface reflects its own light which illuminates all things on the surface.

The lunar surface itself as an additional (and very diffuse) light source doesn't explain at all a single additonal sharp shadow.

Any additional natural light source (moon surface, earthshine etc.) would cause double shadows for all objects on all pictures. Double exposure would explain why it only appears on some images, and for composites why only in some areas or for some objects.

 

[Cosmos]

@Pashalis, I would like to see the LED/lamp you used. Does it have multiple LEDs and/or reflectors that could cause multiple shadows? If you rotate the lamp, do the shadow formations also rotate?

This is the LED I used. As far as I can see it has one LED and a "PMMA TIR lens/reflector". I'm not sure what you mean with "If you rotate the lamp, do the shadow formations also rotate?". I guess not, but I could try.

 

[Cosmos]

That didn't work yesterday. Now I watched it and it is very convincing, thanks!

Fully agree! Good find Woodsman! So there is little doubt that at least in this picture a double exposure is causing the two sharply defined shadows overlapping each other. Another big - for the moon landing hoax idea in my book.

 

[anka]

Just a comment on this:

If all of that earth would be illuminated as seen from moon, i.e. 'full earth', then sun and earth would be on opposite sides in the sky, which also means the shadows caused by each would be in opposite directions.

In such a case the side of the Moon would be dark (new moon), maybe with some diffused light from the Earth but no sharp shadows like from the Sun.

Thanks people for doing your best to stay in the discussion in a meaningful way although after couple of pages I felt like nicklebleu:

Because such a quest can easily lead one astray. Instead of focussing on what I can do NOW - namely to improve the working of my machine - I go on a wild goose chase that will neither improve my machine, nor make my life or the life or those around me better. I’d say, in such a case the quest for truth may well be a self-deception.

but the thread turned out as more than just a Moon landing debate and very worth following. I am still on the fence as to whether they landed there or not. Obviously, the hoax theory might be a carrot to lead searchers astray and hide much more sinister things. But they are hiding a lot of crazy stuff anyway. The press conference after return of the astronauts was such a pain to watch, like if some people who only then returned from from visit to ZOO were commanded to describe how they enjoyed a trip to Amazonian forest. Very strange. They surely were under a massive pressure because they could not talk freely and had to control themselves very tightly, likely given instructions on an extremely short notice too. Entirely unnatural behavior from all of them. They could already see some very strange stuff before reaching the Moon, who knows. I am not planning to research this topic myself since the list of other topics is too long and I don't find this crucial but will be interesting to see how this things turns out.