Moonfaker: Exhibit A. PART 1

[tenthousandyearsgoon]

keep up the good work brother. anyone with more than 2 brain cells going in the same direction knows that Apollo wasa the biggest friggin hoax of the last century.

[yesiamawizardjonny]

What is the song you use in the opening of MoonFaker?

[tjmac7]

wouldnt put it past the US government to touch up and fake a few photographs from such a major mission and that seems to be the problem, they just cant help embellishing the truth and looking like liars.

[tamaramj]

while watching your own photos demonstrating how shadows fall, it became obvious that all examples you show, were taken on a plain surface.

for understanding why shadows sometimes appear to be looking odd its necessary to understand that the photos in question have been taken in terrain which is NOT plain.

You have no optical indication wether specific sections of the terrain are in level or not, so what makes you believe your interpretation is correct ?

[aCitySoFar]

Apparently, NASA kind of silently says that we indeed landed on the moon but the footage of the landing itself was done by Stanly Kubrik somewhere on earth in case of any possible unforseen problems.

There are evidently blocks of reflectors on the moon placed there by the moon missions that help astronomers (observatories) to point a laser at them and calculate not only the distance of the moon from the earth but the position of our planet and the solar system in the mikly way and the universe.

[chrisdunn421]

Shadows can be explained away even though they are rather interesting. The camera must have been more advanced than I thought possible to endure wide tempature range and solar rays etc...And there is no crater whatsoever man I cant believe this. And then the Van Allen belts man...

[mexicutioner84]

damn i had no idea Murray from Flight of the Conchords was a conspiracy theorist.

[Crapcarp555]

What you don't consider though is refraction(or lack therof). Light bends even in the air. But, because the moon is in a vacuum, there is no refraction, thus making the near 90 degree angle in the apollo photograph possible.

[tiaxanderson]

The moon is truly an amazing place isn't it? Just as flat as the street, multiple light sources and shadows converging at near 90 degrees angles (* sarcasm).

So is any of the conspirators willing to remake these pictures on a surface that geologically resembles the moon.

I know many of you don't care for MythBusters attempt with the shadows, but they did manage to shift the shadows out of parallel paths with only topography, debunking that multiple light sources is the only explanation...

[dolberman2]

light was from the spacecraft

[jratcliff63367]

What a retard

[ELDERBERRYEDITOR]

Valid points clearly explained. Kudos for a true scientific viewpoint and healthy skepticism rare today.

[johnphoenix20009]

Jarrah, will you please compile a DVD with all the Moonfaker videos for download from places like Megaupload?

[petroneva]

The space programme works between earth and the Vann Allen radiation belt, thats where your mobile satelite wonders around. To get through the 'Vann Allen' radiation belt and to the moon, you would have to encapslate the space capsule with three foot of lead, the space suits are not anti radioative (Richard Hoagland) We have all seen 'Capricorn 1' It's a cold war scam! Dig deep and you will realise...

[sintabon3]

If there would be multiple light sources, there would be also duplicacy of shadows...now clearly we see each object has one shadow...how does that add up?

[GoneToPlaid]

Hmm...I think I will have fun debunking Jarrah's very first video about his moon landing hoax claims.

[arobekie]

Why has no high profile scientist dead or alive ever doubted the moon landings,

[jpommers87]

LOL I am delusion?

You are the fucking idiots that believes in youtube conspiracies! You think you are smarter than all the scientists in the world! LMFAO!!

fuckign loser

[creedonc]

Regarding the Apollo 17 image with the '90 degree shadows' it is complete false logic you are using. Your test photos comparing to Apollo 17 image were all on level ground with straight object (poles etc) as the comparison. You seriously cannot compare the two and the only conclusion that anyone can come to is that your comparison is woefully inadequate. The ground under the astronauts feet is not even and appears to fall away from him and the shadow is from a very irregular shaped rock. FAIL.

[Boozyscientist]

@creedonc

If you go to my channel, you will find a short video that covers this rigorously.

watch?v=A8IkdZ8yzUo

[jpommers87]

That day is today however. Satellites have recently taken pictures of the landings sites while orbiting the moon. Guess what? All the landing gear and equipment is still there!

Conspiracy theorists = fail.

[un4g1v3nl]

@jpommers87

conspiracy theorists = epic fail

[MaikUniversum]

@jpommers87 and no one bother to reply to your comment because author is too afraid to admit he is a nut.

[tehPete]

@jpommers87 Any chance you could link me to a page clearly showing them? I've been looking for those photos forever, you'd think that they'd be almost as famous as those taken on the moon itself given all the disbelievers!

[vietpham61]

ALL FAKED.

Why I said that? Back on 1969, it took only 4 days to travel from earth to moon.

Now, 2009, high tech, it took the LCROSS over 3 months (from June-18 to Oct. 09) to touch down the moon south pole. What the hell is top of the world in techology doing?

[URProductions]

The LCROSS traveled to the moon very slowly in a outward spiral orbit as opposed to the direct approach made by Apollo. This was down because it is a more energy efficient than the direct approach and requires less fue.

[obaeyens]

@vietpham61

So you expect the astronauts to sit 3 months to go to the moon?

[sverebom]

Well. the pictures from the LRO are obiously faked, don't u see it? Oh, and by the way, there is no moon ;)

[sverebom]

That's wrong. They have lost 45 film reels from Apollo 11 but not the entire footage of all missions.

[johndude]

I believe that it is POSSIBLE that we did actually go to the moon, most ignorant people are not open to the possibility that we never landed a man on the moon. The whole Apollo 11 story is complete sci fi. No human has ever left the orbit of the earth. I believe the space station is real. Current technology it might be possible, but in 1968! .

[sverebom]

Well, I've been open to the possibility that everything was a fake ('cuz I didn't like the U.S. when I was much younger, sorry guys). But I made my thoughts about this possibility and came to the conclusion, that it's more difficult to the fake the landing on the moon than really fly to the moon. And didn't have to talk with the NASA or the TV to come to this conclusion. I just ... thought about it.

[PorkyPiggles]

You're thinking is all wrong.

If you had any ability to think laterally you may take into account that you are looking at 2D pictures of a very uneven surface where shadows may merge. Some shadows can fall into dips. Don't bore us with obvious things like perspective. We all get it, we all know what it is. I can't believe you wasted time taking pictures to show it. Again I'm un-impressed.

[infopatriot]

It is evident to me that the lunar landing was a complete hoax. It has been 40 years, and we have made no attempt to put anyone up there again? Instead of putting a man there, we are going to bomb the shit out it.

[trodas]

Let's hope the Moon survive and NASA did not use that bombing as excuse for "missing stuff" from the Moon that was never in ther in the first place.

[tacticlespasm]

The commentary on this reminds me of "The Dust Flows Forward and the Dust Blows Back" track from Captain Beefheart.

However, I enjoyed that album, but this guy sounds like a self obsessed cunt.

It's a shame genuine researchers are few and far between in this type of media as apposed to people who have made their mind up by reading internet forums.

Laser bean me to the moon Jarrah.

[GJOrange]

These hoax theories are nothing to do with the internet. MANY of us thought it was fake as we watched it live. The internet did not invent conspiracy. Why didnt the tapes melt?

[tacticlespasm]

My last paragraph in my previous comment said, to summarise, it's a shame there aren't more genuinely open minded and curious people as there are one track minded people, on both sides of the debate; inquisitive minds that are open to any source of genuine investigation.

The prevolence and spread of random information on the internet can help and also hinder any kind of balance opinion

Yes of course though, why didn't those damn tapes melt. They were designed to after all. Or were they?

[jamesbooty]

Every test picture in this video is on a flat surface. Shadow angles change based on terrain, which is difficult to ascertain in moon photos given the lack of recognizable landmarks. Hills and valleys, such as those on the moon's surface, cause shadows from a single light source to fall at different angles. Jarrah would almost certainly have discovered this while making his video, so why does he continue to assume multiple light sources even in the face of this simple, plausible explanation?

[ThoughCriminal912]

Excellent video.

[unicornjustice]

during night on Earth the sun reflects light off the moon giving enough light to see by. its possible that the Earth reflected some of the sun's light causing the nonparallel shadows. also the moon landing was in 1969 its been 40 years, we have mars probes, communications satellites, an international space station and missiles that can blow up the F*&@ing moon. just accept that you are wrong and stop trying to ruin all those people's hard work

[WhiteJarrah]

"during night on Earth the sun reflects light off the moon giving enough light to see by. its possible that the Earth reflected some of the sun's light causing the nonparallel shadows."

That's discussed in Part 2. The earth dose cast shadows, but Phil Plait claims that they are too faint to be seen against the lunar surface.

[spangalat]

@WhiteJarrah Shadows produced by a single light source will always be parallel. However, they will only appear parallel in a photograph if that photograph is taken from a view point on a plane perpendicular to the line of the shadows. In the moon scenario that would have to be an overhead shot looking down on the moon. Any photographs taken off this plane (as all Apollo pictures had to be) will show the shadows converging, usually towards the horizon. Its simple ray path analysis.

[Cougar139tweak]

@unicornjustice International Space Station-Apogee 360 km (194 nmi) (farthest out) ; Moon-Perigee 363,104 km (closest) Mars probes-Unmanned Communication satellites-Unmanned no "missles" Even saturn V was a staged rocket. And whats with your tag? Unicornjustice?! honestly I really shouldn't bother, Probes made it to the moon that's for sure and man has made it into space- It's the man on the moon part that's in question....Google radioactive moon and click on the NASA website link...

[Lo2dShaitan]

we can ping the moon with the lunar laser ranging retroreflector array. DUMBASS

[WhiteJarrah]

"we can ping the moon with the lunar laser ranging retroreflector array. DUMBASS"

Debunked here: watch ? v = 1rvmBEsTcoU

And here: watch ? v = zCD4lY13D1E

[Crapcarp555]

@WhiteJarrah

LOL!! Okay, so you can put a retroreflector on the moon unmanned with a robot, like what Russia did. However, that doesn't mean that the Apollo landings were faked. If you noticed, the robot retroreflector needed wheels and such to navigate on the moon and place itself precisely. However, the retroreflectors that were placed by the USA haven't got any of those, proving that humans had to place them instead.

[morningstomper123]

@WhiteJarrah Dude you are a fucking moron. You claim two experiments, done over half a century ago, that show a laser can bounce off the natural surface of the moon trump the hundreds of experiments conducted since that show you CAN NOT bounce a laser off the moons surface and retrieve it back at the emission source. Hundreds of recent experiments indicate that you are wrong. Two experiments indicate that you are right. The conclusion is elementary. Nothing was 'debunked' in those links. Fail.

[AlienshateU]

@Lo2dShaitan You just got owned by jarrah in Moonfaker: exhibit D parts 6 & 7

Wake up brother. Apollo missions were fake, 9/11 was an inside job, and the coming "alien" invasion/disclosure will be fake as well... all to bring in the evil 7 yr. New World Order...

[Cougar139tweak]

@Lo2dShaitan Yes so can Russia with the two reflectors they left on the moon- oh wait,.. they didn't send men to the moon did they??.....hmmmm wonder how those got there- Luna 17

[forestinfullbloom]

@Cougar139tweak You don't need reflectors to get laser to bounce back from the moon. It can be done without the reflectors. Both the US and the USSR have done laser ranging before the alleged moon "landing".

[Cougar139tweak]

@forestinfullbloom You're correct but that comment is for those who say the reflectors are some kind of "proof" that we got there, irregardless that you would or wouldn't need them to get the laser to bounce back. Perfect photos are proof enough for me that somethings up, just look a photos made by the Soviets on the Luna missions as well as current (1995) problems with radiation on film.

[lyniseuk]

Check the depth of the shadows that would require 2 bright light sources hence 2 shadows. Also the terrain is uneven which is why the shadow is not parallel! I think you need to look away from NASA data and find evidence of the sets and people who worked on this conspiracy then people would take more notice of your views!

[lyniseuk]

2 light sources create 2 shadows just go to a floodlight football match and you will see multiple shadows, guys again more bad science get a life and stop interpritating NASA data to form a theory to furhter your cause!!! If NASA faked everything they would not release soo much data to the public, also why haven't the Russians said that NASA faked all the missions...think about it?

[WhiteJarrah]

"2 light sources create 2 shadows"

Discussed in this very video.

"why haven't the Russians said that NASA faked all the missions"

See here: watch ? v = nZN3PI7HRvU

[Crapcarp555]

@WhiteJarrah

Oh, so the Russians got wheat at a cheap price for not exposing USA huh? That is so fucking outrageous it's not even funny. Even if the USA showered Russia with jewels they would still expose them, there would be people in the government that would still try to expose them. Also, why now? Why not back then? Why has this conspiracy theory popped up now. Because of the advancement of technology, things like Photoshop and stuff.

[bil1yjoe]

In his Rhetoric, Aristotle acknowledges that it would be better if we could make our case without either browbeating or flattering the audience; nothing should matter except "the bare facts." Yet he laments, "other things affect the result considerably, owing to the defects of our hearers." Check out the MythBusters video and listen to their talking astronaut doll, he can explain everything to you.

[leg369]

not sure what to say to that. Your recration is bad science, you forgot to take into account the countour of the moon. If you try it again with using countoured area and not flat city streets you might have some credible evidence, ottherwise that argument is just plain garbage.

[freedomfan0801]

Wouldn't the shadows appear to converge if the cameraman was using a fisheye lens?

[WhiteJarrah]

"Wouldn't the shadows appear to converge if the cameraman was using a fisheye lens?"

Yes. But as we learn in Part 4, the Hasselblad did not use a fisheye lens.

[freedomfan0801]

Ahhh yes. I watched it and it makes sense. LOVE your work!!

[azlektano]

omg

[northerntruthseeker]

America, and other parts of the world have just witnessed the episode "Mythbusters" that has just upped the stakes in the attempt to debunk the moon hoax theory.

Look at the episodes and judge for yourselves... I am especially annoyed as to how they dismiss so easily the non-parallel shadow multiple light source fact without using your "double dasher" photo from this part of the Moonfaker expose.

Now believers will use Mythbusters as their ultimate ace in the hole against hoax investigators!

[retepvosnul]

Hahaha, If you think that Mythbusters material constitute evidence not yet publicly available in support of these moon events, then I can see how you can easily be fooled in believing random non-sense like moon conspiracies.

You simply have no clue on how to read, obtain or interpret the available material. That of you are simply a lazy conspiracy seeker who would never bother looking at the tons and tons of proper science that you can feely look into any time.

Clue-sticks are cheap though.

[Freedom572]

Moon landing is fake...

[northerntruthseeker]

I enjoy the typos... It shows you are only human too!

I do NOT enjoy the Propagandists rude attacks that they continuously make in their vain attempts to hang on to the lie called Apollo.

It is disconcerting to know that they will defend the lie of Apollo so brutally rather than face the fear that they have been told lies all of these years.

Those that are enlightened enough don't live with that fear, and find your videos a great service to mankind.

Keep up the good work, friend!

[potamuspeter]

dedunk?  Do you mean debunker?

[WhiteJarrah]

"dedunk? Do you mean debunker?"

Yeah, it was a typo.

[potamuspeter]

No prob.

[vanopang]

if LIGHTS were in two DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS the SHADOW would also have been in two different directions ...

[vanopang]

if LIGHTS were in two DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS

[jassjason]

hey thats museum station in Sydney city

[grayhog86]

Bad science.

Worse logic.

Stupidpoopyhead.

[humongousclint]

In his shadow theory he uses a light pole to disprove converging shadows. But the light pole does not have an irregular shape... that something else might have, say a rock for instance. But even so the shadow of the lip of the trah can does point at a right angle to his shadow making it appear to have a secondary light source.

[grayhog86]

The "producer", WhiteJarrah (?) teases in the beginning that "there really is no point in making another documentary about the moon landings being faked..."

Oh, I wish he wasn't just being a Tease.

To think of all the well meaning people misled by the moon hoax nutters "evidence" saddens me...

We went. We went NINE times. We land FIVE times. We have TONS of video/photgraphic/audio and telemetry data, we have hundreds of pounds of samples.

"They" have a unfounded fear of conspiracy.

[johndude]

"We went. We went NINE times. We land FIVE times. We have TONS of video/photgraphic/audio and telemetry data, we have hundreds of pounds of samples" THEY (NASA) LOST THE ALLEGED ORIGINAL HIGH QUALITY VIDEO/RAW TAPES AND THEY WEIGHED HUNDREDS OF POUNDS! Lets see some un-edited raw footage, oh wait,,,,,,,,,,,there isn't any.

[grayhog86]

1. Only Apollo 11's originals were taped over. You have no excuse for 12, 14, 15, 16 & 17.

2. Copies of the originals exist and have been restored and secured.

3. How are you hoax weenies dealing with the recent LRO imaging of the landing sites? Are you finally moving on to other conspiracies like who really shot J.R. Ewing?

The loss of the original Apollo 11 tapes is tragic - does not lessen the amount of information and evidence we have. Copies were made and are with us.

[maqboolism]

i want to know if there is oil on moon

[arobekie]

Yes, in the gearbox of the lunar rover,

[arobekie]

Yes,In the gearbox of the lunar rover,

[northerntruthseeker]

It is sickening as to how the propagandists continue to argue by attempting to shoot the messenger rather than examine, and debate the issues. Shadows can not diverge together unless coming from multiple sources, or unless you are standing on sharp angled, curved, or convolute surfaces. The lunar surface was generally flat terrain in each landing!

Additionally, the double dasher alone proves the use of multiple light sources!

Propagandists can only blow hot air and avoid debating these issues.

[satweavers]

My goodness, Jarrah. You try so hard to avoid the obvious. Check my evidence. Go to PhotoBucket dot com. Search "satweavers", click "view satweaavers album", select "Moon Hoax" then look at sub albums, "Moon Light", "Moon Shadow" and "Astronaut Shadows". Without any trick photography or plastic buckets, the mystery of the shadows is fully explained.

[WhiteJarrah]

"My goodness, Jarrah. You try so hard to avoid the obvious. Check my evidence."

I've seen you're feeble excuses a million times, I am tired and have more important things to do than give my time of day to propagandists like you. So please, fuck off.

[satweavers]

"...some will do their very best to avoid this theory for the sake of their credibility". It sounds to me as though the Red-Headed Grandson of the Moon Hoax Theory is in serious damage controll mode to preserve his "credibility". Avoiding the issue will only hurt you in the end, boy-o!

[WhiteJarrah]

"Avoiding the issue will only hurt you in the end, boy-o!"

You mean the way you avoided the Bill Wood quote?

[afewgoodclips]

chupacabra!

[lockheed225moomiji]

You are completely and utterly WRONG!!! Why? Your photos compared with the NASA photos have a VERY significant difference. What is that? You may ask. That's the terrain, you are comparing FLAT terrain with a terrain that has many rises, potholes and slopes. Quit dreaming and just face reality. Idiot, your "evidence" isn't consistent.

[WhiteJarrah]

See Part Three for terrain.

[lockheed225moomiji]

Might I add that all you need to do in order to answer this is to just look out your(or someone else's) window at night to see the moon and use some common sense. Why can you even see the moon? Oh yeah, A HIGHLY REFLECTIVE SURFACE DUMBASS!! That's your hot spots and converging lights. Do you any research to back up claims? If you do, it's very hard to believe.

[corazonsito25]

hola

[kapitalisten]

Check this url:

en dot wikipedia dot org/wiki/Apollo_moon_landing_c­onspiracy_theory

[kosh2001]

very interesting, great research...

[kapitalisten]

At 05:30 you say almost 90 degree angle but the angle is 60 degrees because the stone edge is not vertical. Perspective lense effect can make 60 degree effect on upper right rock. Prove I'm wrong!

[kapitalisten]

At 05:14 you claim 2 shadows from stone. But the stone surface may split shadow in two directions because of the projected from 3D landscape onto 2d picture effect.

[kapitalisten]

You use flat surfaces to check shadows but moon surface is not flat. This influence a lot of direction of shadows. Perspective is only one factor.

[WhiteJarrah]

The surface is looked into in Part 3.

[kapitalisten]

Shadows does not need to go in same direction from one light source if projected from 3D landscape onto 2d picture.