No other object in the room in their moon landing model (moon hoax show,) is casting straight shadows, If they're refuting multple light sources then they should show us the effect of multple light sources which = multiple shadows,
The reality is the Nasa pics were done under a single closer light source & this made the shadows lead at angles away from the light, The MB studio light failed to project shadows comparable to the sun. They made the first picture taken shadows appear straight. Lies
Stage 1 - Made the scene to look like parallel shadow
Stage 2 - Mod only the topography, where everything else (light & camera position and the subject remain untouched)
Conclusion:
Certainty is a big statement in science (even in DNA matching, it have to give statistical probability in court), but this test shows that there are "other" natural ways to manipulate the shadows to look none parallel. So Hoaxer claim it the "only way", it is in fact false.
its mythbusters you faggits, theyre enterainers; special effects artists, not scientists of any type. theyd loose their show and be labelled as anti american if they said it was a fake. their experiments dont prove anything, in fact it shows it was faked by their standards. go fuck yourself lunar tuner you faggit fuck face cock brain
@MrToiletface, you're entitled to your opinion about the Apollo program and about Mythbusters, but give me one reason why I should let you make childish, profane insults to me. This is my page. THIS IS A WARNING: Don't abuse me, because if you do it again, you will disappear.
ermm also if the astronaut was lit up then there should be no shadow of the lunner module bec of the dust emitting reflected light of the sun would be like a 2nd source of light of the top the ground and also the moon is very bight at night so shouldn't either the camera aperture by turned all the way down ie small hole low light, or the ISO of the flim is very low? other wise u all u would see is white light
lol this kinda funny cos they have proved the moon hoax by disapproving it in effect they have soon how the moon hoax works bec they cannot show wat it would look like on the moon, only the fake one from 1969 they further povered it was fake
@b41984 Oh my science! I don't even know what to say to such a stupid fucking comment. You're so utterly wrong. You sound like a little kid. I got wrapped up in the moon hoax when I was 12. Good thing I grew a brain and got out of that nonsense when I was 15.
You gotta love these hoaxers. ANYONE providing concrete unquestionable obvious, evidence that we actually went to the Moon, is obviously "on the government payroll" or some kind of "shill". Hilarious.
As to detail of objects in shadow: how did we manage to photograph the Dark Side of the Moon? With flash? No, just adjust your speed and shutter aperture.
Or is that a hoax too? I guess it is, and they airbrushed the alien cities, parking lots and McDonalds' there too.
Absolutely ridiculous point. Anyone that has serious photo experience knows that "converging shadows" depend on the lens and it's angle away from bring parallel to the floor. If you take a picture in NYC from street level the skyscrapers would seem to converge but we all know they don't.
@Chev4206, I disagree. These models lack detail and look cheeseball to me. But that's a subjective opinion. In reality, subjectivity--neither mine, nor yours--does not prove anything. This is a demonstration of a particular point. This demonstrates that on an uneven surface (and the moon is about as uneven as you can get), shadows do various things. Besides, models wouldn't explain how to hoax almost 20,000 photos that match what is ALSO seen in video and film.
@LunarTuner Your page is devoted to discussing and DEFENDING the apollo program. If it actually happened why the need for defence? You are so fucking stupid you veritably walk into your own ignorance. Evidence against it ever occurring is overwhelming and these two homosexual cocksuckers are shills on the payroll of your government agencies. They simply portray what they want the ignorant and illiterate masses to believe. How do you know the moon is about as uneven as you can get? Been there???
@Chev4206, I defend the truth when it's attacked by ignorant people. You, being among them.
Any butthead with a telescope can see that the moon is uneven! Can you say C R A T E R ?
You're done here. You serve no purpose. Not only did you come to "my house" and call me "stupid," but you have nothing intelligent to offer. I could have offered your thoughts politely, but your mamma didn't teach you manners. Therefore....YOU ARE BLOCKED!!! HAAAA! :D
first of all I'd like to state that those mythbuster guys do miss a lot of points in their program. What they do is roughly scientific experience. And their results cannot be taken for serious matters. Personally I think they are terrible in science. I could point out some mistakes they make in others shows, but thats not the point here.
In this video they dont show anything. Whether apollo is a hoax or not, I dont know, but their explanation sure is. First of all, if the ground surface is the problem, they had to show the aligned shadows and compare it to the other one. thus showing how the ground really influenced the photo.
All I'm saying here is that shown from above, that illusion should not happen, and thats pretty easy to demonstrate on camera. Just take the camera, shoot from above and while keeping the vid rolling, put the camere where u can see the illusion.
So either they think their viewers are stupid enough to believe any crap they throw or they couldnt make it in studio with one light source.
or, theres always the possibility that they are very stupid and didnt think of that.. which might be the case lol Anyway, they didnt demonstrate anything at all.
In the second part, they reeeeally assume we are stupid. They are NOT in an environment that only one light soource. On 7:16 you can cleary see the wooden table lit. If the reflection is causing the problem, how the hell is that part of the table lit?
If u doubt me,go to a completly dark room with a flashlight and try to film anything that is not in the flash lights beam. And the compare it to this video.
If that wasnt enough, they clearly dont know how reflection works. unless they thing light makes curves(and plz, light can make curves, just not in this environment). If the terrain is totally plain(I mean TOTALLY and fully fulfilled, like a glass),the surface would work like a mirror, so u cant have any light beam on dark spots.
But it is not totally plain. So part of the mainstream beam can be reflected to others direction. Altought this is right, the very thing that makes it possible to have light beams in dark spots, makes it impossible by the amount. What I mean is, ground irregularity makes it possible to have light beams reflected in many directions, but that same irregularity makes it almost impossible to really light something. That reduces a great deal of that 8% reflection.
for that matter, his arms reflected more light to that doll, than the ground did... lol
To me, the biggest hoax is mythbuster itself...
but, after this, I'm starting to believe that we actually never went to the moon. Is it just me or in moons sky in those pictures has NO STARS??????? and since theres no atmosphere, theres no clouds. with a open sky it should be PLENTY of stars...
@zimbol, any astronomer will tell you that the earth's atmospheric effect on starlight is much more distortion than reduction of magnitude. No matter how clear the sky, a star is 1,000s of times less bright than the sunlit surface. You will not see stars in ANY photos of astronauts or cosmonauts in space. You need exposure times of at least 8 seconds or more. It's s a bald fact. In fact, if I see stars, I know it's science fiction.
@Chev4206 You can always tell when someone has no facts. They resort to namecalling. Mythbusters busted the Moon hoax MYTH. The Moon is about as "uneven as you can get" because of millions of craters, in addition to the fact that not even a paved sidewalk is completely FLATover any real distance. Can't you guys even read a 6th grade science book? (Oh yeah, THEY were written by the "government" too) Only YOU know the "truth". RIIIGGGHHHT.
@Mozart1220 I call conspiracy theorists all sorts of rude names, and I have the side of truth and all the proof. I just can't tolerate some of the stupid shit they post. It makes me want to cuss them out... Which I do.
@yesiamawizardjonny Resorting to namecalling lowers us to their standards. Intelligent people do not need to resort to such tactics. Using them gives the hoaxers a weapon against those who simply want to set the record straight.
@Chev4206 you werent paying attention, they clearly demonstrated what the skeptics and others of limited intelligence such as yourself asserted could not exist. angled shadows using a single light source. it proves you dont know the simplest photography basics even at a high school level. "you cannot have a straight shadow on a sloped surface"
@thatamazinggeek I know. It's a real pity there is still 99% of the populace that has to wake up to the truth that is happening all around. How do you make a lie believable? Just keep repeating it. Nuff said ( on You Tube ).
I am just waiting for the conspiracy nuts to claim Mythbusters is in on it. lol I am sure they already have. They seem to make up more stuff every time their crazy theories are disproven.
@shananagans5 Have a better look at the photo's the lander red lines are not on the same angle on both pictures. Plus the line they have drawn on the lander is just a representation as the shadow is broken up by making a few mounds out of dirt in front of it. To me the shadow lines they created are on the same angle so not busted. Mythbusters set out to prove an outcome they wanted.
if you see the whole episode you'll see how the myth gets busted. they proved why the shadows werent parallel and also they demonstrated other myths that people say about the first moon landing, such as the foot print and the breeze of the flag, therefore you should see the whole episode, not just a fragment of it.
@09F150, but he's not COMPLETELY dark. Remember, these are not exact conditions--they can't be. At 6:55 the exposure must be lowered because more bright surface are visible than in the exact photo being compared. So, you'd be comparing apples to oranges. Another way to put it is to say that those two shots you refer to are not under the control of the experiment. It may even be possible to change the exposure even more & make the a-naut go completely black! But that's not a fair comparison.
"Another way to put it is to say that those two shots you refer to are not under the control of the experiment."
Howdy LT! :)......i think that quote is actually my point about those 2 pauses.........they weren't under the CONTROL of the experiment........but the CONDITIONS for the experiment were clearly set in place at that moment.
At 1;10 the narrator states that the conspiracy theorists say that the astronauts standing in the shadows:
"you wouldn't be able to see him so CLEARLY"
So,of course it'll not be COMPLETELY dark..
also,that space suit is white after all...and surely has some sort of reflective properties,picking up even the reflective light off the moons surface.,so no doubt you'd be able to SEE HIM......just not so brightly.
At 1;10 the narrator states that the conspiracy theorists say that the astronauts standing in the shadows:
"you wouldn't be able to see him so CLEARLY"
So,of course it'll not be COMPLETELY dark..
also,that space suit is white after all...and surely has some sort of reflective properties & material,picking up even the reflective light off the moons surface.,so no doubt you'd be able to SEE HIM......just not so brightly.
You can bullshit stupid blonde with this explanation. After that episode I lost all my respect to you guys. Fuck the shadows. 1. How you can explain that the camera film (no digital that time) wasn't destroyed or melted in the temperature of +150 C making that many perfect pictures. 2. Look at the time -1969 what kind of technology and electronic we had? Safety flight and comeback healty astronauts from the moon had less chance than safety swimming over Atlantic ocean in the bathtub. BULLSHIT
@KoziolekMatolek2010 1. The Hasselblad cameras that took almost 20,000 photos during Apollo weren't much different than those used by Gemini, Apollo-Soyuz and Space Shuttle EVAs. Temperatures weren't much different. Go to the Lunar and Planetary Institute website. You'll see 100s of imperfect photos! 2. What technology do you think was missing? What electronics were essential for going to the moon that weren't essential for Mercury, Gemini, Vostok or any other spacecraft?
well did the mythbusters just prove how easy it was to fake a alleged moonpicture ?
did they just prove that unparalleled shadows occur ONLY when the lightsource is very near and ?
i think the real msg from the mythbusters is that they wanted to show the public how easy and cheap the "moonpictures" was fabricated without admitting openly that they know the pictures are fake because they depend on the media and they would never be allowed to bust the apollo moon landings :)
@horror11, you obviously weren't paying attention. They clearly explained that the experiment had to do with with the change in shadow patterns resulting from the moon's rough terrain. If you think this looks like an actual moon image, you must be kidding. Besides, do you know that almost every Apollo EVA photo can be matched to corresponding video or film? Try that with miniatures.
@LunarTuner oh yes i know what they said but obviously u did not pay attention what they just showed.
the made moonsoil, a model and lighting almost exactly like a "original picture" and all this with less then 20 bucks, imagine what a proffesional can do with billons :)
well for me its clear, i think they wanted the hidden msg to be understood: the shadows in 4:01 are only possible when the light source is very close and not the sun and they made an almost 1:1 copy of the "original".
@horror11, one needs BILLIONS to build and launch 13 Saturn V rockets. Where do you suppose they got the other BILLIONS to take 20,000 miniature photos including those showing men and thousands of dust particles in mid-jump, matching perfectly what is seen on video and film?
They demonstrated that the light source was far enough away to produce parallel shadows AND that those shadows can be redirected by terrain.
@LunarTuner omg u dont need billions to fake pictures, if that would be the case there would be no hollywoodstudio left today :)
nasa made enough mistakes without going into deep in this, but im talking about this specific mythbusters scene, its very convincing for me that they explained exactly how they will fake a moonpicture with less than 20 dollars and even if they are amateurs their picture looks alot like a "real" moonpicture.if u ask me: mythbusters just blew the whistle :)
@horror11, sounds like you have a "THEORY." But you have nothing else. Let's assume it's possible to fake in miniature, 20,000 pictures of complex, verfied lunar terrain, complex machinery and scenarios that exactly match the 100+ hours of film & video also shot--while also launching 13 of the most complex machines every built. You will need to produce some evidence that it was actually done. A half-finished photo? Interview with one of the artists? A document? Anything?
@LunarTuner the mythbusters have the same theory but they show it without exposing themselves to the fanatics and paid or unpad liars.if i were to blow the whistle without exposing myself i would do exactly the same.
if they rly wanted to proove that sunlight made the shadows in 4:01 they would simple put the model somewhere behind a window and let the sunlight cast the shadows but instead they used artificial light in very close range and thats what many doubters allways claimed:)
@horror11, the relative distance of the light source is irrelevant to their stated test. The point is, the apparent direction of the shadows can be changed without the light--ANY LIGHT--being manipulated! That debunks the claim that more than one light is used to fabricates something in the Apollo photos. Sunlight, artificial light, 10 feet, 50 feet, 92 million miles....irrelevant.
@LunarTuner i dont think the distance is irrelevant.
i believe this effect occurs ONLY when the lightsource is very close and my own tests at home showed the same.
thats why im absolutely sure that the mythbusters wanted either to blow the whistle or tried to mislead the audience deliberately as their test is not a accurate and scientific test because they had to take in account the sundistance
i will rethink my stand if someone can duplicate the same test with real sunlight but i doubt it:)
@horror11, a shadow is a shadow. If the point is to demonstrate that a shadow can appear to redirect by changes in the terrain, it doesn't matter if the shadow comes from 10 feet away or from another galaxy. It can still appear to be redirected. But...you keep enjoying your own tests. ;)
@LunarTuner "a shadow is a shadow." ok that shows lack of knowledge.
the sun is allways in the same position millions of miles away,a artificial light instead can be placed anywhere, so the problem here is that u can place a artificial light in between the 2 models and have 2 shadows in opposite directions but u cant duplicate the same effect with sun light because u cant place the sun in between the models.u can do everything with artificial light but not with sunlight, thats the point:)
@horror11, So, a shadow is NOT a shadow? Oh sorry. How silly of me. A shadow is baloney sandwich!
Did Mythbusters use a 2nd artificial light to cause the shadows to appear to change direction? No. Were the shadows parallel to begin with? Yes. Can one point 2 lights onto one object and it casts only one shadow? No.
I can go outside on any sunny day and see hundreds of examples of shadows conforming to the objects onto which they are cast. It is not an other-worldly phenomenon. It's physics!
After 43 years a space station complex would be the ideal to have been built on the moon already. They just can't get there safely and never did. Boasting about moon landings won't keep us out of wars; it just shows dishonesty and creates more distrust.
You made a comment about a space station on the moon 43 years after first exploring it. I made a comment about Europe colonizing North America 115 years after first exploring it. Is the parallel too mentally taxing for you?
The most important accomplishment relevant to all history would have been to continuing the exploration and colonization of the moon for all generations. They did not do it because they never went in the first place, and cannot go even now.
@EGMAG, you make the assumption that NASA stopped efforts toward exploration and colonization just because they still don't go to the moon, bounce around and collect dust. Do you not understand what research on the Shuttle and International Space Station is all about? It's about understanding long-duration, permanent stays in outer space! Do you know how to go from spending 3 days on the moon to spending 90 days on the moon? No. Neither did NASA. That's what current missions have been about!
The moon as an International Space station would be a far better accomplishment and much more productive then the IST satelites. Are you not intelligent to know this.
@EGMAG, I'm intelligent enough to know that "IST satelites" don't exist. Maybe you mean the ISS (and there is only 1).
Getting to and from the ISS is exponentially easier to get to in low earth orbit. If anyone wants to live in deep space for longer than a few days, he's going to have to learn how to do it. So, do you teach your 3-year-old to swim by dumping him into the ocean a mile off shore and asking them to swim home? No, you practice in a small pool.
You answer like the true bully you are. Stray away from the truth as far as you like. It is so stupid to keep preaching how wonderful the satellite station is and how terrible a moon station could be. Conclusion, they never went and cannot go to the moon, as the only answer, so get off the high bully horse and come down to earth on a human level of truth.
@EGMAG, I'm not bullying anyone! You just don't make sense! I never said a moon station was a terrible idea. I said it was far more complicated and difficult than the Apollo missions. You irrationally conclude Apollo was a fake based on a false notion that a moon base could have easily come next. You ignore economics and you don't understand the complexities of long-duration time on the moon (radiation, food, oxygen, biomedical impact). Your "only answer" Is unscientific, childish & irrational.
Then moon stations should have begun long long ago if it is complicated; and the rewards would be infinite. No; they claim they did 6 walks and gave up. Well that is scientific failure; and it is indicating the moon walk are lies.
@EGMAG, Uhum. Sure. We should have begun building moon stations with no clear idea of what we were doing. The rewards would have been an overly stressed national budget and increasing danger for astronauts. Instead, NASA opted for fantastic successes with Skylab, the Space Shuttle and international Space Station, where long-duration space flight could be studied in peaceful cooperation with many nations. THAT is priceless! Fortunately for them, you are not their mission director.
@EGMAG, Empty claims. The evidence is overwhelmingly against your predisposition. Men went to the moon and gave every conceivable piece of evidence anyone could ever ask for from any mission: 20,000 photos, 100 hours of video, repeated trips, 842 lbs. of geologic samples, retroreflectors on the surface, tracking from independent sources, live broadcasts showing earth with weather patterns exactly correct & no one has ever blown the whistle from among the over 400,000 workers.
All that baloney has been answered with quite a lot of evidence showing proof of the lies that covered up the truth of an elaborate hoax. I mean what do you want from me? I cannot provide you with more damning evidence then that which is all over the INTERNET so just accept it and bug off PLEASE!
@EGMAG, you're confusing complaining with evidence. Conspiracy theorists don't introduce evidence, they only complain about evidence that is presented. They invent "theories"--cheap, little imaginative ideas.
No, I won't bug off. I have as much right to defend the work of nearly half a million Americans as you do to flippantly brush off those brave accomplishments.
Your the one who is confused. I say bug off because you do not face the evidence directly. You go around in lying circles and expect people to have faith instead of true evidence that there was never even a moonwalk possibility. You disregard all the evidence that is clear and concise proving a moonhoax and give ridiculous excuses as to why you think the evidence is false. Your hypocritical thinking can never speak the truth. Each proof of a moonhoax you dismiss blindly, with B.S.
@EGMAG Again, you've confused EXPLAINING anomalies with IGNORING them. I've never shied away from ANY moon hoax challenge. If you have one, bring it on! But don't complain if I have a scientific, rational, logical explanation for what you think is "evidence" of some fakery. To me, it's NOT clear!
Hit me with your best shot. I don't believe you have a single sensible argument against the veracity of the Apollo program...but go ahead. Give me what you got.
I have not ignored anything. I have been interested in this for several years now and have posted to you all the answers to your questions for a few years. You are one ignorant person who just ignores everything taught to you. I already went through your little bullshit gauntlet. Can't you remember me?
i don't believe in conspiracy. but the way you are trying to prove the shadows from the same source is not gonna work. shadows are certainly from the same source. but shadows created by sunlight is almost parallel because of the distance of the object from sun. here you just proved that the shadows were created from a nearest possible source of light. the shadows were not parallel probably because of the shape of the object.
Can someone tell me where exactly I can find that "extra" material that Adam mentioned in this episode?
I tried to find it on their homepage but there was nothing there as far as I could see - and everything I actually find about the moon hoax is the stuff I've already seen in the main episode. Õ_O
lol how much light reflecting of the camer,that isnt to scale,aprox 5 foot camera,and 2 fucking tall people over (to scale just top half 25 foot tall) all the light reflecting off them,see how they didnt get a light reading off there black surroundings,all crap
I think it's funny how those that believe the Moon landings were faked, now think Mtyhbusters is a bad show. Hilarious. I'm still waitng for proof that they were bribed to come to thir conclusins, many of which can be duplicated by anyone with a camera
@Mozart1220 so do you think spraying a SLR camera silver would protect it and the film from harm on the moon ? is that what YOU are saying ? just so i know how nuts YOU are :)
@kevinstuartfr0st, the coating is only ONE way cameras used in space are protected. Remember, heat can't transfer in a vacuum by convection as on earth. There's no air. Reflecting light into a vacuum is a powerfully effective way to dissipate heat. Heat doesn't saturate airborne particles because there AREN'T ANY! Hasselblad cameras used in space work quite well. 100s of 1,000s of photos prove that! They are specially insulated & yes, it works!
Are you saying current space photos are also fake?
@LunarTuner the first moon trip ALL they did was spray it silver,that is on there web page,AND NO THEY WAS NOT INSULATED, so the space suits didnt need hot and cold water just a vacume :)
@kevinstuartfr0st I think I'll go with the people who deal with actual science, than those who come up with stupid reasons why basic physics are wrong. Many items were wrapped in gold mylar to reflect heat. You also notice the spacesuits were white? Tha helps too.
@Mozart1220 NASA own web page said the camera was sprayed silver,nothing else (some say a small plate at back but that was to attach it to the space suite)what like mythbusters lol,they said on one of there shows that 2 magnatrons wouldnt heat warter up quicker than 1,i have a video showing that is bullshit,the big question is why they would lie,have u got a idear ?
@kevinstuartfr0st I don't care because I don't see any reson to doubt them. There is no point in faking anything. I'm tryig to figure out the downside to NASA. Tens of thousands of jobs, new technologies that help solve real world problems, inspiration for kids to want to learn math ans science, and the percentage of the federal budget is like 1% of that of the miltary. NASA has to BEG for funding, and they do great things. Why the hate?
@Mozart1220 simple fact is they thought they could go,then they hought they could fake it untill they can go, in a few more missions time,got to the point that they relised they couldnt go and could'nt tell us or there funding would stop,it is funny how some people say there open minded like lunartuner,but he is'nt he acts as if your taking his god away from him,
@kevinstuartfr0st, No, that's not a "simple fact." That's a wild conjecture--a theory which is not supported by ANY scientifically tenable evidence or rational thought. If I have to choose between being rational or having an "open mind," I'll choose being rational until someone can convince me otherwise.
@kevinstuartfr0st Well, given that the facts are on the side of them actually going, and ALL the "evidence" from the hoaxers can be refuted by a kid with a middle school science education, I'll stick with the idea that they actually went. If you come up with some actual evidence they didn't, let us know. It's not that hard to get there, all it takes is math and money.
@Mozart1220 Yet we haven't really been to the moon since. We build an international space station IN SPACE as opposed to on the moon. We get nothing but shitty black&white photos of the moon, even with our technology today (hubble telescope) capturing beautiful HD photos from the wide reaches of the galaxy. And also the moon is probably the most bizarre solar body in our solar system, maybe the universe, being in a perfect circular orbit with earth, which defies entropy and other laws of physics
@SchoolingAllComments There is no real benefit to going back to the Moon right now. The space station helps us learn, among many other things, how to deal with the effects of long term exposure to little or no gravity, which is an essential part of surviving on the Moon or on the way to Mars. And if you think OUR moon is the"most bizzare solar body" , you really need to do some research on the subject. It is quite possibly the LEAST intersting "solar body" out there, other than most asteroids.
@Mozart1220 I'm not saying we didn't land on the moon, but there are definitely some creepy and bizarre things about it that will make u shiver if u actually think about it. Landing on the moon is the least of my worries with our moon at the moment. That shit creeps me out!
@SchoolingAllComments WHat "creepy and bizaare things) are you talking about? There is nothing about the moon that "makes me shiver". It's the Moon. We went there six times. Nothing creepy that I can see.
@kevinstuartfr0st, NASA: "The outer surface of the 500EL data camera was colored silver to help maintain more uniform internal temperatures in the violent extremes of heat and cold encountered on the lunar surface. Lubricants used in the camera mechanisms had to either be eliminated or replaced because conventional lubricants would boil off in the vacuum and potentially could condense on the optical surfaces of the lenses, Reseau plate, and film." (...more...)
@LunarTuner NASA: "Modifications to the cameras included special large locks for the film magazines and levers on the f-stop and distance settings on the lenses. These modifications facilitated the camera's use by the crew operating with pressurized suits and gloves. Additionally, the cameras had no reflex mirror viewfinder and instead a simple sighting ring assisted the astronaut in pointing the camera."
"...Kodak was asked by NASA to develop thin new films with special emulsions."
No wonder youtube's full of them. Up to this day, some people still believe that the earth is flat. And yes, the earth is flat when you look at it on a photo. By that I'll conclude thatt my friends are also flat. LOL
The 841 rocks found on the moon and brought back are enough proof:
"Moon rocks are absolutely unique," says Dr. David McKay, Chief Scientist for Planetary Science and Exploration at NASA's Johnson Space Center (JSC). McKay is a member of the group that oversees the Lunar Sample Laboratory Facility at JSC where most of the Moon rocks are stored. "They differ from Earth rocks in many respects," he added.
1. Pause video at 7:28 NASA-astronaut has same color white as moonsurface - MB-astronaut is NOT as white as moonsurface, he is grey!
2. Pause at 7:44 Color of moonsurface on MB-pic is now whiter than moonsurface on NASA-pic = MB-picture has been made brighter (photoshop) so it APPEARS as if the astronaut is white when he is actually GREY had light settings been the same.
Going 2 NASA 4 help makes no sense - Would you trust a thief who tells you he has not stolen?
I cannot believe that anybody still believes that the Moon Landing was a Hoax, There were thousands of people on earth with telescopes that saw the Apollo Module and lander during the voyage to the moon, Remember Russia saw the Apollo Module and Lander, and if it wasn't viewable from space, Russia would have had a field day calling the landing a complete hoax.
@TheJohnHodgson1111 .. Seriously , you believe that thousands saw the lander? Then were are the pictures? That's right, they can't produce pictures because of the reflectivity of the surface. I guess those people have magical telescopes ;) Crazy how they can produce images of the Sun's surface, even though it's 450,000 brighter than the moon.
lol theirs a huge difference of the sun light and them placing a prop light a prop light can be positioned to cast different angles huge difference of light at couple feet and the sun
All they may have done was to get a few simpletons, who lack the ability to think in the abstract, to believe that shadows can change direction based on the surface's topography. If they could of busted it, they would of included the light source to prove that a second source was not present. Notice though that they made sure that the light source was not visible during the shot.
ps> the shadows would of straightened out after they cleared the little mounds of dirt. They want you to believe that the shadows deflected off of the mounds. And seriously, how gullible do you have to be to believe that all 3 shadows had they same topographical conditions?
@jaekent, there's no question that shadows on uneven surfaces are angled differently. YOu see this every day on earth. There is also no question the moon is VERY uneven. Why show the light source while the picture is taken? That would only make it very difficult to see anything because of the glare. It seems you're suggesting that they cheated.
Of all the objections to Apollo, I find this to be the most silly. Go a bumpy field. Take a few pictures of objects using a wide lens. You'll see.
@LunarTuner .. of all the responses, this one has to be the most gullible. Why show the light source? Simple .. the myth is that a secondary light source was used. So in order to bust this myth, it would only be logical to prove, that without a doubt, that only one light source was present during the shot. Again, after the shadow has cleared the obstruction it will return to its original trajectory. Go outside, find a shadow and see for yourself.
@jaekent, I can only assume that you don't trust Mythbusters when they clearly say they are using only one light source. Hmmm. So, now a TV show is a new conspiracy?
How do we know a shadow is long enough to "clear the obstruction"? Maybe the obstruction is long enough that the "trajectory" is completely effected. Quite believable on a terrain as lumpy as the moon. There are thousands of photos of the lunar surface where MILLIONS of different conditions exist. ANY combination is possible.
@LunarTuner .. its not an issue of trust. Its an issue of fact and reality. And the reality is that they claimed to have busted the myth but in fact, they did no such thing. The myth was that a secondary light source was used and they made no attempt to prove otherwise. Look at the picture, clearly the obstruction was not enough to completely deflect the shadow, let a lone in a relatively straight line and a few degrees ( ~5-10 ) off of a parallel trajectory.
@jaekent The reality is you didn't watch the video and your paranoia is rediculous. The point was to show that 2 light sources weren't used. In order to do that they would have to recreate the picture using 1 light source, which they did. The picture is spot on. You probably just need a new computer screen. You can buy them at the store, not in your moms basement. But you better watch out 'cause the government might get you. And don't forget your tin foil. You'll get a case of the mind control!
@cheesemunkee , you should check the meds that you're taking because you're seeing things that aren't actually there. Are they for your schizophrenia? Or maybe you smoke crack? Doesn't matter ;) Either way , they didn't show that only one light source was used. Besides,, only an idiot would believe that the topological conditions would of created straight and parallel shadows.
@jaekent No I don't do drugs. I don't have schizophrenia. And if you watched the video, clearly there is only one light source. They show it multiple times. If you really want proof, make it yourself. Recreate the picture using one light source and you'll see that the picture is possible. It's time you quit being a drag on the human race by saying we can't do anything. We landed on the moon whether you like it or not.
@cheesemunkee .. Buddy! They showed "a" light source, then conveniently took the picture, leaving "the" light source out of the picture. Besides, there is no possible way that the rocks, each of a different dimension, had identical bumps, to match those of the dimensions of rocks to create identical, straight and parallel shadows. Odds would have to be in billions. ...
@cheesemunkee. The drags on the human race are those who believe what they are told, even though what they are told makes absolutely no sense. Like those who believed that there were WMDs and then don't question why there is still a war in Iraq after it was made known that there were no WMDs. Or why they went into Iraq in the first place. Especially since the 911 terrorists were are Saudi nationals, not Iraqi. If you don't do drugs and you aren't schizophrenic .. what is wrong with you?
@jaekent You're what's wrong with me. Obviously, no one will ever change there stance on an issue over youtube. Not you, not me, not anyone reading this. The point is mute.
@cheesemunkee .. wrong. I've had the pleasure of helping a bunch of people see what they weren't able to originally see or understand. You are actually the first, that I know of anyways, to see the logic (or truth) but would rather be wrong and "keep their pride" instead of changing their stance. Good for you though .. at least you got your pride ;)
@jaekent It's not about pride. So far we've disputed without any REAL proof. Although you and I have said back and forth that the rocks are/ are not in the right position or there is one/ are two light sources, neither of us has actually demonstrated it with our own experiment. THAT is why I won't take your side, and you won't take mine. We both have perfectly good reasons to believe our own opinions, but haven't given proof to make them facts.
@cheesemunkee .. fair enough ;) and I apologize for pressing this but one does not need to demonstrate the obvious or the impossible. The obvious, the picture does not bust the myth that only one light source was present because the light source was not included in the picture. The impossible, that 3 rocks had corresponding bumps ( or topological conditions ) that were identical to the dimensions of the rocks to cast identical, straight and parallel shadows.
@cheesemunkee .. also, it may seem that way but I don't want you or anybody else to take my side. I want people to be able to think in the abstract, to ask questions and to notice what is and what isn't. If more people challenged themselves to think outside the box and just stop accepting what they are told, as the way that it is .. we wouldn't be in the mess that we are in.
@cheesemunkee .. some examples would be: why were hundreds of millions of the bailout money paid out in bonuses. A bonus is rewarded when someone does what they were suppose to do. Which implies that Wall St was paid the bonuses because they were suppose to take down the economy. Why are they in Iraq when Iraq had nothing to do with 911? They had no WMDs , so why are they still in Iraq? If we don't ask the questions, or think in the abstract , we are doomed to make the same mistakes.
@jaekent Well thanks for being more mature than most people on Youtube. It was fun debating with you. I can see where you come from on most of this stuff. I still stick to my side and think the picture is real, but whatever. It was nice talking to someone who didn't instantly jump to changing the subject from the video to "You must be retarded". Also, I do ask questions. Maybe not out loud, but they do exist. Thanks for the intellectual debate.
@LunarTuner .. Also, if you noticed, the obstructed shadows are all in straight lines and parallel to each other. It is pretty far fetched to believe that all three rocks had identical topographical conditions, where all 3 shadows are deflected in parallel and straight lines. Especially being that all 3 rocks were of different dimensions.
The only thing i might add though is they changed the conditions to suit the explanation they wanted a bit. They had more than a spotlight in the first test and did not bother adding the reflective stuff, then they added reflective stuff and had just one source of light for the second. I am not saying they aren't myths but they started both tests with different conditions that suitede what they wanted to show.
this must be the reason people think the moon landing is a fake. check it the two knockle heads did not black the back drop for the shadow scene, nor dd they turn off all the lights. and yet they think you all are stupid.
Its not worth an argument unless you have valid reasons Yes I do believe we set foot on the moon What makes so many people think it is all fake? Some extra light? The moon reflects lite if you havnt noticed There is a mirror on the moon Do you think it is more likely a shiny rock If you think about it it dosnt take much to fly there
@XboxPhantom You get to orbit A faster velocity will mean a higher orbit, and so on, we pick up enough speed to increase your orbit. and so on. to a point where you are close enough to the moon for its gravity to pull on you more than the earths. So you are able to decelerate and go into lunar orbit. Landing on the moon is not hard, no atmosphere, so you slow the LEM down so you will start falling faster and faster. Full thrust near end to soften the landing and your on the moon.
@XboxPhantom Leaving is easy enough. Same as any other launch you see. Just all smaller ratios for gravity, speed, and required thrust. You leave moon dock with the CM and use its power to return. Slow when you enter back into earth orbit. Separate CM from the LEM and the rocket. enter the earths atmosphere at over 5 thousand miles an hour and so so on.
HOW HARD IS THAT? Other than the Money needed (not a problem back then) and just some good pilots and a well programed computer.
@ Lunar Tuner - "Oh my! You think those little models look like Apollo Lunar EVA scenes (which include astronauts, rovers, etc.)? Seriously?"
Didn't quite say that, did I, cleverdick? If they could afford to send a manned mission to the moon, they could afford to build a full-scale stage set of the moon.
@CJOKUSAP , you didn't say that either! Let's see, that would put a gigantic, never-before-seen single light source about half a kilometer away in a stage set far bigger than any stadium on earth. THAT would be clever.
Erm...what have they busted? All they've proved is that "moon conditions" can be recreated here on Earth. We can only prove what a "moon shot" looks like if we have a real one to actually compare it to, and seeing as those who believe it was hoaxed don't accept any of them as real, whay have they really proven?
@CJOKUSAP, Oh my! You think those little models look like Apollo Lunar EVA scenes (which include astronauts, rovers, etc.)? Seriously? The specific test they did was about the behavior of shadows. Did you miss that?
This has been flagged as spam show
No other object in the room in their moon landing model (moon hoax show,) is casting straight shadows, If they're refuting multple light sources then they should show us the effect of multple light sources which = multiple shadows,
The reality is the Nasa pics were done under a single closer light source & this made the shadows lead at angles away from the light, The MB studio light failed to project shadows comparable to the sun. They made the first picture taken shadows appear straight. Lies
Rand0mManic 4 days ago
In science it a matter of elimination.
Stage 1 - Made the scene to look like parallel shadow
Stage 2 - Mod only the topography, where everything else (light & camera position and the subject remain untouched)
Conclusion:
Certainty is a big statement in science (even in DNA matching, it have to give statistical probability in court), but this test shows that there are "other" natural ways to manipulate the shadows to look none parallel. So Hoaxer claim it the "only way", it is in fact false.
Guesswhokk 1 month ago
its mythbusters you faggits, theyre enterainers; special effects artists, not scientists of any type. theyd loose their show and be labelled as anti american if they said it was a fake. their experiments dont prove anything, in fact it shows it was faked by their standards. go fuck yourself lunar tuner you faggit fuck face cock brain
MrToiletface 1 month ago
@MrToiletface, you're entitled to your opinion about the Apollo program and about Mythbusters, but give me one reason why I should let you make childish, profane insults to me. This is my page. THIS IS A WARNING: Don't abuse me, because if you do it again, you will disappear.
LunarTuner 1 month ago
@LunarTuner , why wait?
oleecow 3 weeks ago
@oleecow, I value people's rights to free speech--and their rights to be idiots. That actually serves a purpose ;)
LunarTuner 3 weeks ago
Its funny how they recreated the exact effects in both cases.
ZSpartan2013 2 months ago
I think I'll be my own expert on studying photos.
jgbloyd 3 months ago
He's black...lol
hejacky11 3 months ago
ermm also if the astronaut was lit up then there should be no shadow of the lunner module bec of the dust emitting reflected light of the sun would be like a 2nd source of light of the top the ground and also the moon is very bight at night so shouldn't either the camera aperture by turned all the way down ie small hole low light, or the ISO of the flim is very low? other wise u all u would see is white light
b41984 4 months ago
@b41984 The moon is not bright you fucking tool. It's as dark as asphalt, with an albedo of only 7 percent.
yesiamawizardjonny 2 months ago
lol this kinda funny cos they have proved the moon hoax by disapproving it in effect they have soon how the moon hoax works bec they cannot show wat it would look like on the moon, only the fake one from 1969 they further povered it was fake
b41984 4 months ago
@b41984 Oh my science! I don't even know what to say to such a stupid fucking comment. You're so utterly wrong. You sound like a little kid. I got wrapped up in the moon hoax when I was 12. Good thing I grew a brain and got out of that nonsense when I was 15.
yesiamawizardjonny 2 months ago
If you realize, there aren't any stars in the background, this was also in the Apollo 18 movie, lol.
TheMultiverse666 4 months ago
@TheMultiverse666 Dumbass. That's called, The Camera doesn't have a high enough exposure.
Dumbass Troll is Dumbass.
yesiamawizardjonny 2 months ago
@yesiamawizardjonny Go fuck yourself.
TheMultiverse666 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The moon missions were faked.
politicalforum (dot) com/moon-landing/190138-apollo-moon-missions-were-faked-studio (dot) html
Cosmored 6 months ago
You gotta love these hoaxers. ANYONE providing concrete unquestionable obvious, evidence that we actually went to the Moon, is obviously "on the government payroll" or some kind of "shill". Hilarious.
Mozart1220 6 months ago 3
As to detail of objects in shadow: how did we manage to photograph the Dark Side of the Moon? With flash? No, just adjust your speed and shutter aperture.
Or is that a hoax too? I guess it is, and they airbrushed the alien cities, parking lots and McDonalds' there too.
rpgtutubo 6 months ago
Absolutely ridiculous point. Anyone that has serious photo experience knows that "converging shadows" depend on the lens and it's angle away from bring parallel to the floor. If you take a picture in NYC from street level the skyscrapers would seem to converge but we all know they don't.
rpgtutubo 6 months ago
People like Chev4206 can't be reasoned with. That's why people like him disappear.
HaustoriaPith 6 months ago
@thatamazinggeek Now you're taking the piss !!!!!
Chev4206 8 months ago
Their set models look so realistic!! Just like the NASA ones..............
Chev4206 8 months ago
@Chev4206, I disagree. These models lack detail and look cheeseball to me. But that's a subjective opinion. In reality, subjectivity--neither mine, nor yours--does not prove anything. This is a demonstration of a particular point. This demonstrates that on an uneven surface (and the moon is about as uneven as you can get), shadows do various things. Besides, models wouldn't explain how to hoax almost 20,000 photos that match what is ALSO seen in video and film.
LunarTuner 8 months ago
@LunarTuner Your page is devoted to discussing and DEFENDING the apollo program. If it actually happened why the need for defence? You are so fucking stupid you veritably walk into your own ignorance. Evidence against it ever occurring is overwhelming and these two homosexual cocksuckers are shills on the payroll of your government agencies. They simply portray what they want the ignorant and illiterate masses to believe. How do you know the moon is about as uneven as you can get? Been there???
Chev4206 7 months ago
@Chev4206, I defend the truth when it's attacked by ignorant people. You, being among them.
Any butthead with a telescope can see that the moon is uneven! Can you say C R A T E R ?
You're done here. You serve no purpose. Not only did you come to "my house" and call me "stupid," but you have nothing intelligent to offer. I could have offered your thoughts politely, but your mamma didn't teach you manners. Therefore....YOU ARE BLOCKED!!! HAAAA! :D
(I love that!)
LunarTuner 7 months ago 9
@LunarTuner LOL Chev4206 got bitch owned. I hate that moron.
yesiamawizardjonny 2 months ago
interesting
zimbol 3 weeks ago
@LunarTuner
first of all I'd like to state that those mythbuster guys do miss a lot of points in their program. What they do is roughly scientific experience. And their results cannot be taken for serious matters. Personally I think they are terrible in science. I could point out some mistakes they make in others shows, but thats not the point here.
zimbol 3 weeks ago
In this video they dont show anything. Whether apollo is a hoax or not, I dont know, but their explanation sure is. First of all, if the ground surface is the problem, they had to show the aligned shadows and compare it to the other one. thus showing how the ground really influenced the photo.
zimbol 3 weeks ago
All I'm saying here is that shown from above, that illusion should not happen, and thats pretty easy to demonstrate on camera. Just take the camera, shoot from above and while keeping the vid rolling, put the camere where u can see the illusion.
So either they think their viewers are stupid enough to believe any crap they throw or they couldnt make it in studio with one light source.
zimbol 3 weeks ago
or, theres always the possibility that they are very stupid and didnt think of that.. which might be the case lol Anyway, they didnt demonstrate anything at all.
In the second part, they reeeeally assume we are stupid. They are NOT in an environment that only one light soource. On 7:16 you can cleary see the wooden table lit. If the reflection is causing the problem, how the hell is that part of the table lit?
zimbol 3 weeks ago
If u doubt me,go to a completly dark room with a flashlight and try to film anything that is not in the flash lights beam. And the compare it to this video.
If that wasnt enough, they clearly dont know how reflection works. unless they thing light makes curves(and plz, light can make curves, just not in this environment). If the terrain is totally plain(I mean TOTALLY and fully fulfilled, like a glass),the surface would work like a mirror, so u cant have any light beam on dark spots.
zimbol 3 weeks ago
But it is not totally plain. So part of the mainstream beam can be reflected to others direction. Altought this is right, the very thing that makes it possible to have light beams in dark spots, makes it impossible by the amount. What I mean is, ground irregularity makes it possible to have light beams reflected in many directions, but that same irregularity makes it almost impossible to really light something. That reduces a great deal of that 8% reflection.
zimbol 3 weeks ago
for that matter, his arms reflected more light to that doll, than the ground did... lol
To me, the biggest hoax is mythbuster itself...
but, after this, I'm starting to believe that we actually never went to the moon. Is it just me or in moons sky in those pictures has NO STARS??????? and since theres no atmosphere, theres no clouds. with a open sky it should be PLENTY of stars...
zimbol 3 weeks ago
@zimbol, any astronomer will tell you that the earth's atmospheric effect on starlight is much more distortion than reduction of magnitude. No matter how clear the sky, a star is 1,000s of times less bright than the sunlit surface. You will not see stars in ANY photos of astronauts or cosmonauts in space. You need exposure times of at least 8 seconds or more. It's s a bald fact. In fact, if I see stars, I know it's science fiction.
LunarTuner 3 weeks ago
@zimbol
It does not matter how dark the sky is a 1/256 s at F 5.6 second exposure will never show stars.
And those are typical exposure values used when photographing in a very brightly lit environment.
ytmoog 2 weeks ago
@zimbol haha plz, read it botton to top plz...
zimbol 3 weeks ago
@Chev4206 You can always tell when someone has no facts. They resort to namecalling. Mythbusters busted the Moon hoax MYTH. The Moon is about as "uneven as you can get" because of millions of craters, in addition to the fact that not even a paved sidewalk is completely FLATover any real distance. Can't you guys even read a 6th grade science book? (Oh yeah, THEY were written by the "government" too) Only YOU know the "truth". RIIIGGGHHHT.
Mozart1220 6 months ago
@Mozart1220 I call conspiracy theorists all sorts of rude names, and I have the side of truth and all the proof. I just can't tolerate some of the stupid shit they post. It makes me want to cuss them out... Which I do.
yesiamawizardjonny 2 months ago
@yesiamawizardjonny Resorting to namecalling lowers us to their standards. Intelligent people do not need to resort to such tactics. Using them gives the hoaxers a weapon against those who simply want to set the record straight.
Mozart1220 2 months ago
@Chev4206 you werent paying attention, they clearly demonstrated what the skeptics and others of limited intelligence such as yourself asserted could not exist. angled shadows using a single light source. it proves you dont know the simplest photography basics even at a high school level. "you cannot have a straight shadow on a sloped surface"
1MtnBoy 5 months ago
@Chev4206 Look, Mom, this tv show says the other tv show was real.....
jgbloyd 3 months ago
@thatamazinggeek I know. It's a real pity there is still 99% of the populace that has to wake up to the truth that is happening all around. How do you make a lie believable? Just keep repeating it. Nuff said ( on You Tube ).
Chev4206 8 months ago
New NASA video
Buzz Aldrin Funny Man 1969 NASA Apollo Moon Landing THE LIE?
NASAHOAX 8 months ago
@thatamazinggeek
That's just what 'they' want you to think...
ytmoog 8 months ago
1:02 "then,there's this image...of an ARTFULLY lit astronaut"
Does NASA say(admit) that they brightened the photo to show the details of the astronaut and suit...specifically the American flag on the sleeve?
if so,when?
if not,.............why not?
09F150 9 months ago
I am just waiting for the conspiracy nuts to claim Mythbusters is in on it. lol I am sure they already have. They seem to make up more stuff every time their crazy theories are disproven.
shananagans5 9 months ago 2
@shananagans5, Oh that's the best way to prove a theory--with another theory!
LunarTuner 9 months ago
Comment removed
1MtnBoy 5 months ago
@shananagans5 Have a better look at the photo's the lander red lines are not on the same angle on both pictures. Plus the line they have drawn on the lander is just a representation as the shadow is broken up by making a few mounds out of dirt in front of it. To me the shadow lines they created are on the same angle so not busted. Mythbusters set out to prove an outcome they wanted.
123coining123 8 months ago
if you see the whole episode you'll see how the myth gets busted. they proved why the shadows werent parallel and also they demonstrated other myths that people say about the first moon landing, such as the foot print and the breeze of the flag, therefore you should see the whole episode, not just a fragment of it.
isateq 9 months ago
@isateq
who are you talking to?
i have seen the entire episode on tv.
we are all here here commenting on this segment
therefore-----go to the other segment videos and comment THERE ,bucko
09F150 9 months ago
i paused this at 6:55.......................and the astronaut is dark in the shadow from the single light source.
then pause it again at 7:01..............same thing!
09F150 9 months ago
@09F150, but he's not COMPLETELY dark. Remember, these are not exact conditions--they can't be. At 6:55 the exposure must be lowered because more bright surface are visible than in the exact photo being compared. So, you'd be comparing apples to oranges. Another way to put it is to say that those two shots you refer to are not under the control of the experiment. It may even be possible to change the exposure even more & make the a-naut go completely black! But that's not a fair comparison.
LunarTuner 9 months ago
Comment removed
09F150 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LunarTuner
"Another way to put it is to say that those two shots you refer to are not under the control of the experiment."
Howdy LT! :)......i think that quote is actually my point about those 2 pauses.........they weren't under the CONTROL of the experiment........but the CONDITIONS for the experiment were clearly set in place at that moment.
09F150 9 months ago
@LunarTuner
Hi LT :)
At 1;10 the narrator states that the conspiracy theorists say that the astronauts standing in the shadows:
"you wouldn't be able to see him so CLEARLY"
So,of course it'll not be COMPLETELY dark..
also,that space suit is white after all...and surely has some sort of reflective properties,picking up even the reflective light off the moons surface.,so no doubt you'd be able to SEE HIM......just not so brightly.
09F150 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LunarTuner
Hi LT :)
At 1;10 the narrator states that the conspiracy theorists say that the astronauts standing in the shadows:
"you wouldn't be able to see him so CLEARLY"
So,of course it'll not be COMPLETELY dark..
also,that space suit is white after all...and surely has some sort of reflective properties & material,picking up even the reflective light off the moons surface.,so no doubt you'd be able to SEE HIM......just not so brightly.
09F150 9 months ago
Comment removed
09F150 9 months ago
You can bullshit stupid blonde with this explanation. After that episode I lost all my respect to you guys. Fuck the shadows. 1. How you can explain that the camera film (no digital that time) wasn't destroyed or melted in the temperature of +150 C making that many perfect pictures. 2. Look at the time -1969 what kind of technology and electronic we had? Safety flight and comeback healty astronauts from the moon had less chance than safety swimming over Atlantic ocean in the bathtub. BULLSHIT
KoziolekMatolek2010 10 months ago
@KoziolekMatolek2010 1. The Hasselblad cameras that took almost 20,000 photos during Apollo weren't much different than those used by Gemini, Apollo-Soyuz and Space Shuttle EVAs. Temperatures weren't much different. Go to the Lunar and Planetary Institute website. You'll see 100s of imperfect photos! 2. What technology do you think was missing? What electronics were essential for going to the moon that weren't essential for Mercury, Gemini, Vostok or any other spacecraft?
LunarTuner 10 months ago
well did the mythbusters just prove how easy it was to fake a alleged moonpicture ?
did they just prove that unparalleled shadows occur ONLY when the lightsource is very near and ?
i think the real msg from the mythbusters is that they wanted to show the public how easy and cheap the "moonpictures" was fabricated without admitting openly that they know the pictures are fake because they depend on the media and they would never be allowed to bust the apollo moon landings :)
horror11 10 months ago
@horror11, you obviously weren't paying attention. They clearly explained that the experiment had to do with with the change in shadow patterns resulting from the moon's rough terrain. If you think this looks like an actual moon image, you must be kidding. Besides, do you know that almost every Apollo EVA photo can be matched to corresponding video or film? Try that with miniatures.
LunarTuner 10 months ago
@LunarTuner oh yes i know what they said but obviously u did not pay attention what they just showed.
the made moonsoil, a model and lighting almost exactly like a "original picture" and all this with less then 20 bucks, imagine what a proffesional can do with billons :)
well for me its clear, i think they wanted the hidden msg to be understood: the shadows in 4:01 are only possible when the light source is very close and not the sun and they made an almost 1:1 copy of the "original".
horror11 10 months ago
@horror11, one needs BILLIONS to build and launch 13 Saturn V rockets. Where do you suppose they got the other BILLIONS to take 20,000 miniature photos including those showing men and thousands of dust particles in mid-jump, matching perfectly what is seen on video and film?
They demonstrated that the light source was far enough away to produce parallel shadows AND that those shadows can be redirected by terrain.
LunarTuner 10 months ago
@LunarTuner omg u dont need billions to fake pictures, if that would be the case there would be no hollywoodstudio left today :)
nasa made enough mistakes without going into deep in this, but im talking about this specific mythbusters scene, its very convincing for me that they explained exactly how they will fake a moonpicture with less than 20 dollars and even if they are amateurs their picture looks alot like a "real" moonpicture.if u ask me: mythbusters just blew the whistle :)
horror11 10 months ago
@horror11, sounds like you have a "THEORY." But you have nothing else. Let's assume it's possible to fake in miniature, 20,000 pictures of complex, verfied lunar terrain, complex machinery and scenarios that exactly match the 100+ hours of film & video also shot--while also launching 13 of the most complex machines every built. You will need to produce some evidence that it was actually done. A half-finished photo? Interview with one of the artists? A document? Anything?
LunarTuner 10 months ago
@LunarTuner the mythbusters have the same theory but they show it without exposing themselves to the fanatics and paid or unpad liars.if i were to blow the whistle without exposing myself i would do exactly the same.
if they rly wanted to proove that sunlight made the shadows in 4:01 they would simple put the model somewhere behind a window and let the sunlight cast the shadows but instead they used artificial light in very close range and thats what many doubters allways claimed:)
horror11 10 months ago
@horror11
Actually they show that changing the terrain changes the apparent direction of shadows, without moving the light.
With this and the effect more commonly known as 'perspective' are where the confusion about parallel shadows seems to be,
ytmoog 10 months ago
@horror11, the relative distance of the light source is irrelevant to their stated test. The point is, the apparent direction of the shadows can be changed without the light--ANY LIGHT--being manipulated! That debunks the claim that more than one light is used to fabricates something in the Apollo photos. Sunlight, artificial light, 10 feet, 50 feet, 92 million miles....irrelevant.
LunarTuner 10 months ago
@LunarTuner i dont think the distance is irrelevant.
i believe this effect occurs ONLY when the lightsource is very close and my own tests at home showed the same.
thats why im absolutely sure that the mythbusters wanted either to blow the whistle or tried to mislead the audience deliberately as their test is not a accurate and scientific test because they had to take in account the sundistance
i will rethink my stand if someone can duplicate the same test with real sunlight but i doubt it:)
horror11 10 months ago
@horror11, a shadow is a shadow. If the point is to demonstrate that a shadow can appear to redirect by changes in the terrain, it doesn't matter if the shadow comes from 10 feet away or from another galaxy. It can still appear to be redirected. But...you keep enjoying your own tests. ;)
LunarTuner 10 months ago
@LunarTuner "a shadow is a shadow." ok that shows lack of knowledge.
the sun is allways in the same position millions of miles away,a artificial light instead can be placed anywhere, so the problem here is that u can place a artificial light in between the 2 models and have 2 shadows in opposite directions but u cant duplicate the same effect with sun light because u cant place the sun in between the models.u can do everything with artificial light but not with sunlight, thats the point:)
horror11 10 months ago
@horror11, So, a shadow is NOT a shadow? Oh sorry. How silly of me. A shadow is baloney sandwich!
Did Mythbusters use a 2nd artificial light to cause the shadows to appear to change direction? No. Were the shadows parallel to begin with? Yes. Can one point 2 lights onto one object and it casts only one shadow? No.
I can go outside on any sunny day and see hundreds of examples of shadows conforming to the objects onto which they are cast. It is not an other-worldly phenomenon. It's physics!
LunarTuner 10 months ago
@horror11
Shadows cast by sunlight are same photographic rules of perspective as everything else.
And unless you know of some way a shadow cast by the sun would not follow the surface it falls on your argument is missing the point.
ytmoog 10 months ago
After 43 years a space station complex would be the ideal to have been built on the moon already. They just can't get there safely and never did. Boasting about moon landings won't keep us out of wars; it just shows dishonesty and creates more distrust.
EGMAG 10 months ago
@EGMAG, It took Europeans 115 years to start a colony in North America after their first trip there.
LunarTuner 10 months ago
@LunarTuner
What?
EGMAG 10 months ago
@EGMAG,
You made a comment about a space station on the moon 43 years after first exploring it. I made a comment about Europe colonizing North America 115 years after first exploring it. Is the parallel too mentally taxing for you?
LunarTuner 10 months ago
@LunarTuner
YOUR RIDICULOUS.
EGMAG 10 months ago
@EGMAG, Wow! What a brilliant and challenging come-back!
There's no space station on the moon because it would be terribly expensive and exponentially more complicated than the Apollo missions.
LunarTuner 10 months ago
@LunarTuner
The most important accomplishment relevant to all history would have been to continuing the exploration and colonization of the moon for all generations. They did not do it because they never went in the first place, and cannot go even now.
EGMAG 10 months ago
@EGMAG, you make the assumption that NASA stopped efforts toward exploration and colonization just because they still don't go to the moon, bounce around and collect dust. Do you not understand what research on the Shuttle and International Space Station is all about? It's about understanding long-duration, permanent stays in outer space! Do you know how to go from spending 3 days on the moon to spending 90 days on the moon? No. Neither did NASA. That's what current missions have been about!
LunarTuner 10 months ago
@LunarTuner
The moon as an International Space station would be a far better accomplishment and much more productive then the IST satelites. Are you not intelligent to know this.
EGMAG 10 months ago
@EGMAG, I'm intelligent enough to know that "IST satelites" don't exist. Maybe you mean the ISS (and there is only 1).
Getting to and from the ISS is exponentially easier to get to in low earth orbit. If anyone wants to live in deep space for longer than a few days, he's going to have to learn how to do it. So, do you teach your 3-year-old to swim by dumping him into the ocean a mile off shore and asking them to swim home? No, you practice in a small pool.
LunarTuner 10 months ago
@LunarTuner
You answer like the true bully you are. Stray away from the truth as far as you like. It is so stupid to keep preaching how wonderful the satellite station is and how terrible a moon station could be. Conclusion, they never went and cannot go to the moon, as the only answer, so get off the high bully horse and come down to earth on a human level of truth.
EGMAG 10 months ago
@EGMAG, I'm not bullying anyone! You just don't make sense! I never said a moon station was a terrible idea. I said it was far more complicated and difficult than the Apollo missions. You irrationally conclude Apollo was a fake based on a false notion that a moon base could have easily come next. You ignore economics and you don't understand the complexities of long-duration time on the moon (radiation, food, oxygen, biomedical impact). Your "only answer" Is unscientific, childish & irrational.
LunarTuner 10 months ago
@LunarTuner
Then moon stations should have begun long long ago if it is complicated; and the rewards would be infinite. No; they claim they did 6 walks and gave up. Well that is scientific failure; and it is indicating the moon walk are lies.
EGMAG 10 months ago
@EGMAG, Uhum. Sure. We should have begun building moon stations with no clear idea of what we were doing. The rewards would have been an overly stressed national budget and increasing danger for astronauts. Instead, NASA opted for fantastic successes with Skylab, the Space Shuttle and international Space Station, where long-duration space flight could be studied in peaceful cooperation with many nations. THAT is priceless! Fortunately for them, you are not their mission director.
LunarTuner 10 months ago
@LunarTuner
They never ever opted for Skylab or anything else. It was the only thing they could do honestly, because they could never get to the moon.
Neither has any other filthy rich country even attempted the moon. So go back to your crayon book.
EGMAG 10 months ago
@EGMAG, Empty claims. The evidence is overwhelmingly against your predisposition. Men went to the moon and gave every conceivable piece of evidence anyone could ever ask for from any mission: 20,000 photos, 100 hours of video, repeated trips, 842 lbs. of geologic samples, retroreflectors on the surface, tracking from independent sources, live broadcasts showing earth with weather patterns exactly correct & no one has ever blown the whistle from among the over 400,000 workers.
LunarTuner 10 months ago
@LunarTuner
LUNATIC TURNER
All that baloney has been answered with quite a lot of evidence showing proof of the lies that covered up the truth of an elaborate hoax. I mean what do you want from me? I cannot provide you with more damning evidence then that which is all over the INTERNET so just accept it and bug off PLEASE!
EGMAG 10 months ago
@EGMAG, you're confusing complaining with evidence. Conspiracy theorists don't introduce evidence, they only complain about evidence that is presented. They invent "theories"--cheap, little imaginative ideas.
No, I won't bug off. I have as much right to defend the work of nearly half a million Americans as you do to flippantly brush off those brave accomplishments.
LunarTuner 10 months ago
@LunarTuner
Your the one who is confused. I say bug off because you do not face the evidence directly. You go around in lying circles and expect people to have faith instead of true evidence that there was never even a moonwalk possibility. You disregard all the evidence that is clear and concise proving a moonhoax and give ridiculous excuses as to why you think the evidence is false. Your hypocritical thinking can never speak the truth. Each proof of a moonhoax you dismiss blindly, with B.S.
EGMAG 10 months ago
@EGMAG Again, you've confused EXPLAINING anomalies with IGNORING them. I've never shied away from ANY moon hoax challenge. If you have one, bring it on! But don't complain if I have a scientific, rational, logical explanation for what you think is "evidence" of some fakery. To me, it's NOT clear!
Hit me with your best shot. I don't believe you have a single sensible argument against the veracity of the Apollo program...but go ahead. Give me what you got.
LunarTuner 10 months ago
@LunarTuner
I have not ignored anything. I have been interested in this for several years now and have posted to you all the answers to your questions for a few years. You are one ignorant person who just ignores everything taught to you. I already went through your little bullshit gauntlet. Can't you remember me?
EGMAG 10 months ago
@EGMAG, apparently you didn't impress me.
LunarTuner 10 months ago
@LunarTuner
Because talking perfectly loud and true has no effect on you.
EGMAG 10 months ago
i don't believe in conspiracy. but the way you are trying to prove the shadows from the same source is not gonna work. shadows are certainly from the same source. but shadows created by sunlight is almost parallel because of the distance of the object from sun. here you just proved that the shadows were created from a nearest possible source of light. the shadows were not parallel probably because of the shape of the object.
chandan2050 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chandan2050
"but shadows created by sunlight is almost parallel"
Unless the surface the shadows fall on is not flat, nor if you factor in linear perspective.
Both of those change the apparent direction of shadows cast by the sun when captured in a photo.
ytmoog 10 months ago
Can someone tell me where exactly I can find that "extra" material that Adam mentioned in this episode?
I tried to find it on their homepage but there was nothing there as far as I could see - and everything I actually find about the moon hoax is the stuff I've already seen in the main episode. Õ_O
Laurelindo 11 months ago
im supprised they did'nt spray the camer silver to protect it from the extream conditions lol lol
kevinstuartfr0st 11 months ago
lol how much light reflecting of the camer,that isnt to scale,aprox 5 foot camera,and 2 fucking tall people over (to scale just top half 25 foot tall) all the light reflecting off them,see how they didnt get a light reading off there black surroundings,all crap
kevinstuartfr0st 11 months ago
I think it's funny how those that believe the Moon landings were faked, now think Mtyhbusters is a bad show. Hilarious. I'm still waitng for proof that they were bribed to come to thir conclusins, many of which can be duplicated by anyone with a camera
Mozart1220 11 months ago
@Mozart1220 you do relise that NASA is part of the NWO,so you do not need to bribe
kevinstuartfr0st 11 months ago
@kevinstuartfr0st I realize people who think we never went to the Moon are nuts.
Mozart1220 11 months ago
@Mozart1220 so do you think spraying a SLR camera silver would protect it and the film from harm on the moon ? is that what YOU are saying ? just so i know how nuts YOU are :)
kevinstuartfr0st 11 months ago
@kevinstuartfr0st, the coating is only ONE way cameras used in space are protected. Remember, heat can't transfer in a vacuum by convection as on earth. There's no air. Reflecting light into a vacuum is a powerfully effective way to dissipate heat. Heat doesn't saturate airborne particles because there AREN'T ANY! Hasselblad cameras used in space work quite well. 100s of 1,000s of photos prove that! They are specially insulated & yes, it works!
Are you saying current space photos are also fake?
LunarTuner 11 months ago
@LunarTuner the first moon trip ALL they did was spray it silver,that is on there web page,AND NO THEY WAS NOT INSULATED, so the space suits didnt need hot and cold water just a vacume :)
kevinstuartfr0st 11 months ago
@kevinstuartfr0st I think I'll go with the people who deal with actual science, than those who come up with stupid reasons why basic physics are wrong. Many items were wrapped in gold mylar to reflect heat. You also notice the spacesuits were white? Tha helps too.
Mozart1220 11 months ago
@Mozart1220 NASA own web page said the camera was sprayed silver,nothing else (some say a small plate at back but that was to attach it to the space suite)what like mythbusters lol,they said on one of there shows that 2 magnatrons wouldnt heat warter up quicker than 1,i have a video showing that is bullshit,the big question is why they would lie,have u got a idear ?
kevinstuartfr0st 11 months ago
@kevinstuartfr0st I don't care because I don't see any reson to doubt them. There is no point in faking anything. I'm tryig to figure out the downside to NASA. Tens of thousands of jobs, new technologies that help solve real world problems, inspiration for kids to want to learn math ans science, and the percentage of the federal budget is like 1% of that of the miltary. NASA has to BEG for funding, and they do great things. Why the hate?
Mozart1220 11 months ago 3
@Mozart1220 simple fact is they thought they could go,then they hought they could fake it untill they can go, in a few more missions time,got to the point that they relised they couldnt go and could'nt tell us or there funding would stop,it is funny how some people say there open minded like lunartuner,but he is'nt he acts as if your taking his god away from him,
kevinstuartfr0st 11 months ago
@kevinstuartfr0st, No, that's not a "simple fact." That's a wild conjecture--a theory which is not supported by ANY scientifically tenable evidence or rational thought. If I have to choose between being rational or having an "open mind," I'll choose being rational until someone can convince me otherwise.
LunarTuner 11 months ago
@kevinstuartfr0st Well, given that the facts are on the side of them actually going, and ALL the "evidence" from the hoaxers can be refuted by a kid with a middle school science education, I'll stick with the idea that they actually went. If you come up with some actual evidence they didn't, let us know. It's not that hard to get there, all it takes is math and money.
Mozart1220 11 months ago
@Mozart1220 Yet we haven't really been to the moon since. We build an international space station IN SPACE as opposed to on the moon. We get nothing but shitty black&white photos of the moon, even with our technology today (hubble telescope) capturing beautiful HD photos from the wide reaches of the galaxy. And also the moon is probably the most bizarre solar body in our solar system, maybe the universe, being in a perfect circular orbit with earth, which defies entropy and other laws of physics
SchoolingAllComments 11 months ago
@SchoolingAllComments There is no real benefit to going back to the Moon right now. The space station helps us learn, among many other things, how to deal with the effects of long term exposure to little or no gravity, which is an essential part of surviving on the Moon or on the way to Mars. And if you think OUR moon is the"most bizzare solar body" , you really need to do some research on the subject. It is quite possibly the LEAST intersting "solar body" out there, other than most asteroids.
Mozart1220 11 months ago
@Mozart1220 I'm not saying we didn't land on the moon, but there are definitely some creepy and bizarre things about it that will make u shiver if u actually think about it. Landing on the moon is the least of my worries with our moon at the moment. That shit creeps me out!
SchoolingAllComments 11 months ago
@SchoolingAllComments WHat "creepy and bizaare things) are you talking about? There is nothing about the moon that "makes me shiver". It's the Moon. We went there six times. Nothing creepy that I can see.
Mozart1220 11 months ago
@kevinstuartfr0st, NASA: "The outer surface of the 500EL data camera was colored silver to help maintain more uniform internal temperatures in the violent extremes of heat and cold encountered on the lunar surface. Lubricants used in the camera mechanisms had to either be eliminated or replaced because conventional lubricants would boil off in the vacuum and potentially could condense on the optical surfaces of the lenses, Reseau plate, and film." (...more...)
LunarTuner 11 months ago
@LunarTuner NASA: "Modifications to the cameras included special large locks for the film magazines and levers on the f-stop and distance settings on the lenses. These modifications facilitated the camera's use by the crew operating with pressurized suits and gloves. Additionally, the cameras had no reflex mirror viewfinder and instead a simple sighting ring assisted the astronaut in pointing the camera."
"...Kodak was asked by NASA to develop thin new films with special emulsions."
LunarTuner 11 months ago
No wonder youtube's full of them. Up to this day, some people still believe that the earth is flat. And yes, the earth is flat when you look at it on a photo. By that I'll conclude thatt my friends are also flat. LOL
fiLThiLiciOus 1 year ago
test the other photos
bluescwawb 1 year ago
The 841 rocks found on the moon and brought back are enough proof:
"Moon rocks are absolutely unique," says Dr. David McKay, Chief Scientist for Planetary Science and Exploration at NASA's Johnson Space Center (JSC). McKay is a member of the group that oversees the Lunar Sample Laboratory Facility at JSC where most of the Moon rocks are stored. "They differ from Earth rocks in many respects," he added.
amazingdany 1 year ago
The rocks found on the moon and bright back are enough proof.
amazingdany 1 year ago
I am so tired of this very low budget crappy show.
It ran its course out about 2 years ago.
Discovery Channel, it's time to end this pathetic crap !!!
Tiberiusduck 1 year ago
mythbusters are fucking sellouts!
myxa4u 1 year ago
@myxa4u And you're a trolling and moaning whiney wanker!
GronTheMighty 11 months ago
A LARGE MINIATURE..... oxymoron?
UnpredictableProduct 1 year ago
wow mythbuster proves Apollo was fake and its created in studio
trickyideas 1 year ago
@trickyideas lol wut? This is far from recreating the moon landing in a studio.
Ragnarok222R 1 year ago
MB are FAKING their "proof"
1. Pause video at 7:28 NASA-astronaut has same color white as moonsurface - MB-astronaut is NOT as white as moonsurface, he is grey!
2. Pause at 7:44 Color of moonsurface on MB-pic is now whiter than moonsurface on NASA-pic = MB-picture has been made brighter (photoshop) so it APPEARS as if the astronaut is white when he is actually GREY had light settings been the same.
Going 2 NASA 4 help makes no sense - Would you trust a thief who tells you he has not stolen?
sdjfieonskuwerjn 1 year ago
I cannot believe that anybody still believes that the Moon Landing was a Hoax, There were thousands of people on earth with telescopes that saw the Apollo Module and lander during the voyage to the moon, Remember Russia saw the Apollo Module and Lander, and if it wasn't viewable from space, Russia would have had a field day calling the landing a complete hoax.
TheJohnHodgson1111 1 year ago
@TheJohnHodgson1111 .. Seriously , you believe that thousands saw the lander? Then were are the pictures? That's right, they can't produce pictures because of the reflectivity of the surface. I guess those people have magical telescopes ;) Crazy how they can produce images of the Sun's surface, even though it's 450,000 brighter than the moon.
jaekent 1 year ago
lol theirs a huge difference of the sun light and them placing a prop light a prop light can be positioned to cast different angles huge difference of light at couple feet and the sun
stevin47 1 year ago
@stevin47, A difference, yes. A "huge" difference, no.
LunarTuner 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stevin47
A difference? Perhaps. But there is real life examples as well of shadows been distorted by terrain.
tinyurl*com/swissmount
teachski*com/pcindex2005/newenglandnew/mtsnow301v*jpg
What you get with multiple light sources is multiple shadows.
w w w *cardenphotography*com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/DSCF8218*jpg
loperspest 1 year ago
@stevin47
Nope, the claim is that you need two light sources. They achieved the same thing with ONE light source. MYTH BUSTED.
IndividualParties 1 year ago
@stevin47 there's also a huge difference between "theirs" and "there's"
sc3 11 months ago
All they may have done was to get a few simpletons, who lack the ability to think in the abstract, to believe that shadows can change direction based on the surface's topography. If they could of busted it, they would of included the light source to prove that a second source was not present. Notice though that they made sure that the light source was not visible during the shot.
jaekent 1 year ago
ps> the shadows would of straightened out after they cleared the little mounds of dirt. They want you to believe that the shadows deflected off of the mounds. And seriously, how gullible do you have to be to believe that all 3 shadows had they same topographical conditions?
jaekent 1 year ago
@jaekent, there's no question that shadows on uneven surfaces are angled differently. YOu see this every day on earth. There is also no question the moon is VERY uneven. Why show the light source while the picture is taken? That would only make it very difficult to see anything because of the glare. It seems you're suggesting that they cheated.
Of all the objections to Apollo, I find this to be the most silly. Go a bumpy field. Take a few pictures of objects using a wide lens. You'll see.
LunarTuner 1 year ago
@LunarTuner .. of all the responses, this one has to be the most gullible. Why show the light source? Simple .. the myth is that a secondary light source was used. So in order to bust this myth, it would only be logical to prove, that without a doubt, that only one light source was present during the shot. Again, after the shadow has cleared the obstruction it will return to its original trajectory. Go outside, find a shadow and see for yourself.
jaekent 1 year ago
@jaekent, I can only assume that you don't trust Mythbusters when they clearly say they are using only one light source. Hmmm. So, now a TV show is a new conspiracy?
How do we know a shadow is long enough to "clear the obstruction"? Maybe the obstruction is long enough that the "trajectory" is completely effected. Quite believable on a terrain as lumpy as the moon. There are thousands of photos of the lunar surface where MILLIONS of different conditions exist. ANY combination is possible.
LunarTuner 1 year ago
@LunarTuner .. its not an issue of trust. Its an issue of fact and reality. And the reality is that they claimed to have busted the myth but in fact, they did no such thing. The myth was that a secondary light source was used and they made no attempt to prove otherwise. Look at the picture, clearly the obstruction was not enough to completely deflect the shadow, let a lone in a relatively straight line and a few degrees ( ~5-10 ) off of a parallel trajectory.
jaekent 1 year ago
@jaekent The reality is you didn't watch the video and your paranoia is rediculous. The point was to show that 2 light sources weren't used. In order to do that they would have to recreate the picture using 1 light source, which they did. The picture is spot on. You probably just need a new computer screen. You can buy them at the store, not in your moms basement. But you better watch out 'cause the government might get you. And don't forget your tin foil. You'll get a case of the mind control!
cheesemunkee 1 year ago
@cheesemunkee , you should check the meds that you're taking because you're seeing things that aren't actually there. Are they for your schizophrenia? Or maybe you smoke crack? Doesn't matter ;) Either way , they didn't show that only one light source was used. Besides,, only an idiot would believe that the topological conditions would of created straight and parallel shadows.
jaekent 1 year ago
@jaekent No I don't do drugs. I don't have schizophrenia. And if you watched the video, clearly there is only one light source. They show it multiple times. If you really want proof, make it yourself. Recreate the picture using one light source and you'll see that the picture is possible. It's time you quit being a drag on the human race by saying we can't do anything. We landed on the moon whether you like it or not.
cheesemunkee 1 year ago
@cheesemunkee .. Buddy! They showed "a" light source, then conveniently took the picture, leaving "the" light source out of the picture. Besides, there is no possible way that the rocks, each of a different dimension, had identical bumps, to match those of the dimensions of rocks to create identical, straight and parallel shadows. Odds would have to be in billions. ...
jaekent 1 year ago
@cheesemunkee. The drags on the human race are those who believe what they are told, even though what they are told makes absolutely no sense. Like those who believed that there were WMDs and then don't question why there is still a war in Iraq after it was made known that there were no WMDs. Or why they went into Iraq in the first place. Especially since the 911 terrorists were are Saudi nationals, not Iraqi. If you don't do drugs and you aren't schizophrenic .. what is wrong with you?
jaekent 1 year ago
@jaekent You're what's wrong with me. Obviously, no one will ever change there stance on an issue over youtube. Not you, not me, not anyone reading this. The point is mute.
cheesemunkee 1 year ago
@cheesemunkee .. wrong. I've had the pleasure of helping a bunch of people see what they weren't able to originally see or understand. You are actually the first, that I know of anyways, to see the logic (or truth) but would rather be wrong and "keep their pride" instead of changing their stance. Good for you though .. at least you got your pride ;)
jaekent 1 year ago
@jaekent It's not about pride. So far we've disputed without any REAL proof. Although you and I have said back and forth that the rocks are/ are not in the right position or there is one/ are two light sources, neither of us has actually demonstrated it with our own experiment. THAT is why I won't take your side, and you won't take mine. We both have perfectly good reasons to believe our own opinions, but haven't given proof to make them facts.
cheesemunkee 1 year ago
@cheesemunkee .. fair enough ;) and I apologize for pressing this but one does not need to demonstrate the obvious or the impossible. The obvious, the picture does not bust the myth that only one light source was present because the light source was not included in the picture. The impossible, that 3 rocks had corresponding bumps ( or topological conditions ) that were identical to the dimensions of the rocks to cast identical, straight and parallel shadows.
jaekent 1 year ago
@cheesemunkee .. also, it may seem that way but I don't want you or anybody else to take my side. I want people to be able to think in the abstract, to ask questions and to notice what is and what isn't. If more people challenged themselves to think outside the box and just stop accepting what they are told, as the way that it is .. we wouldn't be in the mess that we are in.
jaekent 1 year ago
@cheesemunkee .. some examples would be: why were hundreds of millions of the bailout money paid out in bonuses. A bonus is rewarded when someone does what they were suppose to do. Which implies that Wall St was paid the bonuses because they were suppose to take down the economy. Why are they in Iraq when Iraq had nothing to do with 911? They had no WMDs , so why are they still in Iraq? If we don't ask the questions, or think in the abstract , we are doomed to make the same mistakes.
jaekent 1 year ago
@jaekent Well thanks for being more mature than most people on Youtube. It was fun debating with you. I can see where you come from on most of this stuff. I still stick to my side and think the picture is real, but whatever. It was nice talking to someone who didn't instantly jump to changing the subject from the video to "You must be retarded". Also, I do ask questions. Maybe not out loud, but they do exist. Thanks for the intellectual debate.
cheesemunkee 1 year ago
@LunarTuner .. Also, if you noticed, the obstructed shadows are all in straight lines and parallel to each other. It is pretty far fetched to believe that all three rocks had identical topographical conditions, where all 3 shadows are deflected in parallel and straight lines. Especially being that all 3 rocks were of different dimensions.
jaekent 1 year ago
The only thing i might add though is they changed the conditions to suit the explanation they wanted a bit. They had more than a spotlight in the first test and did not bother adding the reflective stuff, then they added reflective stuff and had just one source of light for the second. I am not saying they aren't myths but they started both tests with different conditions that suitede what they wanted to show.
grantha 1 year ago
this must be the reason people think the moon landing is a fake. check it the two knockle heads did not black the back drop for the shadow scene, nor dd they turn off all the lights. and yet they think you all are stupid.
tony47194 1 year ago
Its not worth an argument unless you have valid reasons Yes I do believe we set foot on the moon What makes so many people think it is all fake? Some extra light? The moon reflects lite if you havnt noticed There is a mirror on the moon Do you think it is more likely a shiny rock If you think about it it dosnt take much to fly there
XboxPhantom 1 year ago
@XboxPhantom You get to orbit A faster velocity will mean a higher orbit, and so on, we pick up enough speed to increase your orbit. and so on. to a point where you are close enough to the moon for its gravity to pull on you more than the earths. So you are able to decelerate and go into lunar orbit. Landing on the moon is not hard, no atmosphere, so you slow the LEM down so you will start falling faster and faster. Full thrust near end to soften the landing and your on the moon.
XboxPhantom 1 year ago
@XboxPhantom Leaving is easy enough. Same as any other launch you see. Just all smaller ratios for gravity, speed, and required thrust. You leave moon dock with the CM and use its power to return. Slow when you enter back into earth orbit. Separate CM from the LEM and the rocket. enter the earths atmosphere at over 5 thousand miles an hour and so so on.
HOW HARD IS THAT? Other than the Money needed (not a problem back then) and just some good pilots and a well programed computer.
XboxPhantom 1 year ago
@ Lunar Tuner - "Oh my! You think those little models look like Apollo Lunar EVA scenes (which include astronauts, rovers, etc.)? Seriously?"
Didn't quite say that, did I, cleverdick? If they could afford to send a manned mission to the moon, they could afford to build a full-scale stage set of the moon.
CJOKUSAP 1 year ago
@CJOKUSAP , you didn't say that either! Let's see, that would put a gigantic, never-before-seen single light source about half a kilometer away in a stage set far bigger than any stadium on earth. THAT would be clever.
LunarTuner 1 year ago
Erm...what have they busted? All they've proved is that "moon conditions" can be recreated here on Earth. We can only prove what a "moon shot" looks like if we have a real one to actually compare it to, and seeing as those who believe it was hoaxed don't accept any of them as real, whay have they really proven?
CJOKUSAP 1 year ago
@CJOKUSAP, Oh my! You think those little models look like Apollo Lunar EVA scenes (which include astronauts, rovers, etc.)? Seriously? The specific test they did was about the behavior of shadows. Did you miss that?
LunarTuner 1 year ago