Moon Landings: Did They Happen or Not?

[Brewer]

Why would a lighter not be a good source of light to test out how shadows cast? I'm confused why you would even have such a thinking pattern. A source of light is a source of light, period.

Lighters, candles and lanterns cast flickering and weak light, that's why most people don't use them for lighting anymore. Far better to use the sun, big, bright and far away, just like on the Moon. Can even use Moonlight for the experiment. So far single shadows, the only time I get double shadows is when using 2 sources of light. You can get a slight double shadow effect when the sun is diffused through glass, a fly screen or the slender twigs of trees. Nothing as dramatic as the images on that magazine.

In fact, you can go out into the sun and check out how shadows cast on the ground live too, with the exact same results, depending on where the sun stands in the sky (which time of the day it is) and the different sizes/heights/forms/distances of objects that cast the shadows. Different sizes/heights/forms/distances of objects is the key here together with the height (or angle) of the light source to understand why shadows cast as they do.

Working outdoors that's exactly what I experience daily! Single shadows, parallel too.

The little experiment proofs without a shadow of a doubt that one light source alone can produce all those "strange shadows" including the overlapping ones. Try it and just observe the results. What do you see? Do you really want me to document and take a picture of the resulting shadows so that you can see it yourself? Just do the experiment and you will see exactly what I've said.

Yes, there was only one light source bright enough to cast visible shadows; the sun. As the little experiment clearly shows, the resulting shadows are absolutely consistent with that same single light source. You don't need any other light source to create all those shadows, period.

Yes I and everyone else can explain it via a little experiment like the one I proposed. I just did it. Just try it and observe the results.

Physics departments in universities around the globe would disagree with you, one light, one object, one shadow. However when shown such images these same departments simply choose to ignore it or say something along the lines of 'shadows are different on the moon' or its a penumbra. If you're out and about on a bright sunny cloudless day and see some of these double shadows could you snap them and the object casting it please? Preferably an object roughly LM sized and must have sharply defined edges and angles, no penumbras. Thanks

 

[Brewer]

The astronauts had almost certainly been ordered to comply with a public relations department, and like booking time on a big computer, (or satellite) such a department would likely have used their allotment to have them to produce nice pictures and press-suitable content on schedule.

Fair enough but this press-suitable content, did it stop with this one video? Did they go to the Moon only to return to find much of their stills and movie footage rendered unusable due to the harsh lunar conditions and had to re-shoot them in a studio? If so, shouldn't NASA place a disclaimer on it's material, much like a news channel will when they reenact an incident? The astronauts had to answer to a PR dept but NASA is obliged to answer to the public.

 

[flashgordonv]

Fair enough but this press-suitable content, did it stop with this one video? Did they go to the Moon only to return to find much of their stills and movie footage rendered unusable due to the harsh lunar conditions and had to re-shoot them in a studio? If so, shouldn't NASA place a disclaimer on it's material, much like a news channel will when they reenact an incident? The astronauts had to answer to a PR dept but NASA is obliged to answer to the public.

Brewer, you and a number of others seem very invested in the landing being a fake. Why is it so important to you that you are burning endless cycles trying to prove it so? I don't understand. It is an event that happened 50 years ago. What difference will its truth or it being a fake make to you doing the work today?

 

[Woodsman]

This light and shadow thing seems to be a real sticking point. I've explained how to solve it, but Brewer seems unwilling or unable to engage with the problem in a practical manner.

I have to agree with BlackCartouche; if you're here, you're agreeing to crucible level work, so you need to be prepared to have your sacred cows challenged. I don't, however, want to get sucked into organic portal energy drain dynamics, but at this point it seems I've committed somewhat at least to collecting my own observations here for others and future reference.

And so perhaps I can help lay this 'double' shadow question to rest...







There other examples of strange shadow effects which Moon Hoax proponents like to point to as proof of a grand conspiracy. I'd encourage folks to examine those examples like scientists, to think through the possible mundane explanations. As I've said many times, there is plenty of weird stuff out there which cannot be explained by "swamp gas" answers. Learning how to discern signal from noise is vital to progressing through this stuff. The Moon Hoax question is apparently a good training ground.

 

[Brewer]

Brewer, you and a number of others seem very invested in the landing being a fake. Why is it so important to you that you are burning endless cycles trying to prove it so? I don't understand. It is an event that happened 50 years ago. What difference will its truth or it being a fake make to you doing the work today?

Its in the Conspiracy section of the forum, it's where such things are discussed. Other sections discuss their passions:- pets, cooking, music, gardening and HISTORY. I love history and the landings are part of history so why not? Is not studying history part of the work? LKJ wrote a hefty tome on the secret history of the world did she not? What happens in the past affects the future.

If NASA faked the landings then what else have they faked and continue to fake? Mars, Voyager, ISS? Bear in mind NASA reports on and helps propagate the lie of global warming, scaring the hell out of kids. They're also telling the world they're going back for umpteenth time, something that never appears to happen so they're probably lying again and draining vast amounts of resources in the process.

I meet many people who believe the official narrative on 9/11, JFK, global warming, Putin, evil Russians, Hilary good, orange man bad and so forth. Occasionally, you can help them look at these subjects in a different light by having a good working knowledge of them. I've made some very good friends that way (and a few enemies! ) and that in itself is worth it!

This time last year I still believed in the official narrative regarding the landing, today I'm highly skeptical because I happened to watch some ISS videos that looked like they were filmed in a vomit comet. I then began looking at the HD stills and stabilized films of the landings and noticed something was off about them. So here I am!

50 years ago, yes they were, JFK was 6 years earlier, 9/11 almost 20 years already. Still relevant.

 

[Woodsman]

Update.

I wasn't entirely satisfied with my evaluation of the "Double Shadow" images. I couldn't make a second light source of any kind or attitude fit what I was seeing. So I spent some more time with one of the images and spotted something else which makes a lot more sense than a second light source.

It's probably easier to show than to try to explain:

I'm not sure exactly what would cause this kind of double exposure. Perhaps somebody with experience in silver halide photography can chime in. In any case, I think it should be clear that this image is not evidence of a second light source.

 

[Hi_Henry]

Its in the Conspiracy section of the forum, it's where such things are discussed. Other sections discuss their passions:- pets, cooking, music, gardening and HISTORY. I love history and the landings are part of history so why not? Is not studying history part of the work? LKJ wrote a hefty tome on the secret history of the world did she not? What happens in the past affects the future.

As you rightly pointed out, this is a "Conspiracy" section of the forum. I may have missed it but I don't think there is any hard rule as to what is a "right" or a "wrong" conspiracy. No one is being personally attacked and as far as I can tell everything is more or less very civil. If Brewer and the rest want to play in the "sand box" what the heck is the problem ?

Everyone has a free will (so I am led to believe here) to chose to stay in the discussion or to leave it. But browbeating someone with innuendoes that there is nothing there because they have spent immense effort to study the subject and found nothing is one of the most simplistic zero value arguments one can use. In a debate that would get nowhere.

I have noticed a certain unwillingness to analytically engage in a debate when that possibility clearly exist. Instead you get a stream of verbiage which is exactly worth as much as the words seen on the monitor, nothing. Case in point, penumbra.

It took me less than 10 minutes to pull together the following instead of just throwing around "terminology" like it is beyond someone to take the time and explain the problem. Penumbra, the lighter shadow as opposed to the harder one called Umbra. It's width can be calculated !!!!



Penumbra Size - dead easy to calculate and dead easy to explain. When done one has a better feel as to how to interpret its occurrence in photos. Have a look,
1) How to calculate the width of Penumbra
Note that
a - distance to light source
b - height of object to surface where the shadow falls
f - diameter of the light source
Ug - width of the penumbra

2) Here is a better explanation of the situation,
Shadow

3) Here you have a simulation of the situation in case the number don't convey the story completely.
Simulation

Suggesting that it is best for someone to leave something alone because someone deems it not to be a conspiracy is real taking the cake. Brewer, don't let them keep you in Plato's Cave.

 

[Hi_Henry]

This time last year I still believed in the official narrative regarding the landing, today I'm highly skeptical because I happened to watch some ISS videos that looked like they were filmed in a vomit comet. I then began looking at the HD stills and stabilized films of the landings and noticed something was off about them. So here I am!

Can you explain where you see an issue with the ISS video ? Seem normal to me. The hair? My guess is she feels better with it floating

 

[Woodsman]

We're clearly in Mercury Retrograde. I ran into a lot of problems trying to upload a video clip in my previous post (in an effort to correct a false solution in the post before that); after multiple false attempts with a couple of video hosting sites and online .gif makers and such, I finally managed it, but only at the worst resolution.

This has been a rather sloppy bit of problem solving; first, I encountered my own biases again, (which I know I have at this point, but do they ever getcha!) Then it took hours after the fact to upload a correction. Better messy and late than not at all, I suppose, but dang!

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

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

This is the original image which you can see here up close:
(You'll notice that several of the images in that series share the same quality of double-exposed elements.)

https://flic.kr/p/yKAdTc

 

[duyunne]

Its in the Conspiracy section of the forum, it's where such things are discussed. Other sections discuss their passions:- pets, cooking, music, gardening and HISTORY. I love history and the landings are part of history so why not? Is not studying history part of the work? LKJ wrote a hefty tome on the secret history of the world did she not? What happens in the past affects the future.

If NASA faked the landings then what else have they faked and continue to fake? Mars, Voyager, ISS? Bear in mind NASA reports on and helps propagate the lie of global warming, scaring the hell out of kids. They're also telling the world they're going back for umpteenth time, something that never appears to happen so they're probably lying again and draining vast amounts of resources in the process.

I meet many people who believe the official narrative on 9/11, JFK, global warming, Putin, evil Russians, Hilary good, orange man bad and so forth. Occasionally, you can help them look at these subjects in a different light by having a good working knowledge of them. I've made some very good friends that way (and a few enemies! ) and that in itself is worth it!

This time last year I still believed in the official narrative regarding the landing, today I'm highly skeptical because I happened to watch some ISS videos that looked like they were filmed in a vomit comet. I then began looking at the HD stills and stabilized films of the landings and noticed something was off about them. So here I am!

50 years ago, yes they were, JFK was 6 years earlier, 9/11 almost 20 years already. Still relevant.

I'm actually interested in finding out more about the Apollo 11 film then to argue whether we've been to the moon to be honest.

I used to believe Apollo 11 was real, but there are too many factors of corruption from NASA and the US for me to want to defend it any longer as Brewer points out above.

Also I find the film and film making aspect of this issue to be fascinating as well, as it emphasises the US's marriage to Hollywood as this event is indeed connected in an elaborate way to mass media and that culture.

As result I see these large U.S. media events like this as another psychological operation much of the time.

I'm glad there is an outlet for this conversation here and it seems like we're skirting on a slippery slope of censorship when people start to mock and ridicule those who taking the tricky task of pointing out their suspicions against NASA and the US, which IMHO is completely and whole heartedly necessary these days.

Until we're back on the moon again with some evidence of the set being there and not in some hidden studio somewhere, I'm on the fence and I'm open to continuing to observe where this leads.

 

[Beau]

it seems like we're skirting on a slippery slope of censorship when people start to mock and ridicule those who taking the tricky task of pointing out their suspicions against NASA and the US

This is not a public space so there is no claim to 'censorship' if you are suddenly not allowed to post. You are currently allowed to post so I don't know how you can say there is some slippery slope of censorship. There is a standard for posting on the forum, read the guidelines if you haven't yet. As long as you don't break the rules you can post. But do expect others to critically break down your posts. That is part of what we do here so if you don't like it,

It's one thing to point out suspicions about something, it's wholly another to engage in foolish diversions from paying attention to reality right and left. You aren't bearing the cross of a trailblazer when doing the latter no matter how much you convince yourself of the rightness of your ideas.

 

[duyunne]

This is not a public space so there is no claim to 'censorship' if you are suddenly not allowed to post. You are currently allowed to post so I don't know how you can say there is some slippery slope of censorship. There is a standard for posting on the forum, read the guidelines if you haven't yet. As long as you don't break the rules you can post. But do expect others to critically break down your posts. That is part of what we do here so if you don't like it,

It's one thing to point out suspicions about something, it's wholly another to engage in foolish diversions from paying attention to reality right and left. You aren't bearing the cross of a trailblazer when doing the latter no matter how much you convince yourself of the rightness of your ideas.

I’m referring to being called a flatearther or any other slur as result of being brazen enough to go into territory some people might think is taboo or unnecessary. It’s not a matter of being allowed to do something but how you’ll be treated if you do. That’s what I’m talking about. If we’re being critical, why make such a connection? It’s not as if we’re saying the moon itself is fake or made of cheese.

 

[Hi_Henry]

I’m referring to being called a flatearther or any other slur as result of being brazen enough to go into territory some people might think is taboo or unnecessary. It’s not a matter of being allowed to do something but how you’ll be treated if you do. That’s what I’m talking about. If we’re being critical, why make such a connection? It’s not as if we’re saying the moon itself is fake or made of cheese.

It's called,

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]

 

[luc]

I’m referring to being called a flatearther or any other slur

It's called,

Interesting that you even now misrepresent what has been said. Where has anybody called you or anybody else a flatearther? When has anybody "slurred" you? Read the posts again.

The problem is that emotional reactions can make you completely blind to nuanced discussion and deep thinking. And this is part of the flatearther logic that has been criticized here.

Maybe you can see the point if you de-identify yourself for a moment with this whole moon landing thing, as Joe already recommended. Consider, as a thought experiment, that the whole moon hoax thing is itself a hoax and just plain wrong. Or that you've never heard of the moon hoax conspiracy theory. Then read some of the posts here again.

 

[Cosmos]

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.

The experiment I proposed above solves all those issues and you can actually see it yourself. As for the double shadow, as brought up above, it is simply what is called Umbra, penumbra and antumbra:

Umbra, penumbra and antumbra - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

_

_

_

Here are three pictures I just shot all illuminated by one single light source in different heights and angles. The objects are on the same exact position in every picture, the only thing that changes is where the light source is shining (from which angle). And no, I still can't see why I couldn't use a lighter as well, but for the sake of Brewer, I just used a LED light. In the last picture I also recreated the double shadow aka the Umbra, penumbra and antumbra. Notice how one single light source can produce various angles of shadows depending on which angle the light source shines in. And no I've not cheated. Just try it YOURSELF: