Mirrors (retroreflectors) alone do not prove people walked on the Moon, but they add to mountains of evidence confirming Moon landings.
Conspiracy Theorists like to claim those mirrors were placed there robotically, similarly to what Russians did with their Luna rovers, but they can't show even one piece of proof for their theory.
Making sensational claims is easy. It makes Conspiracy Theorists feel more important. It elevates their egos and helps them to forget about their ignorance.
Here is my new video. I still save some hope you realize one day how wrong you are and save whatever dignity you got left:
watch?v=rHnCfFcoIbo
I encourage you to do the same experiment and see how it works for yourself. Hoax theory you so fanatically believe is plain garbage and examples like these show it clearly.
No tricks, no secondary light sources are necessary to make shadows appear at unusual angles. Learn the facts and stop making ass of yourself.
@BlisterHiker, the outcome of your "experiment" does not match the original photo so you have not proved anything. I am not a hoax person but better evidence is required!
That was only a simple demonstration, and it does illustrate that shadows may appear to converge at 90° to shadow of photographer, and even at 180° to each other!
Btw, in my follow-up to this video, I show what happens when we use more realistic object shape.
I also demonstrate the same principle in real conditions, on a beach.
Anybody who understands geometry does not need any evidence, but these videos show it for people who want to learn what happens in such situations.
i make my own opinion. unmanned means without living persons, right? that makes senses, cuz only the us were capable to achieve that trip to the moon.. :-) 40 years later no other country could go to the moon..but the us did..wow..what a reality u are livin in
Again, Apollo program took place because it was highly political. Everybody knows that.
Today there is no immediate reason for founding very expensive program like that to send people to the Moon for only a few days. NASA has much more ambitious plans, like establishing permanent or long term human presence on the Moon (lunar outpost) and exploration of Mars.
Learn the facts and try to notice nothing you said actually shows even one bit of evidence against Apollo missions.
Listen man, stop joking and if you can, focus on the subject of this video.
Another argument used by conspiracy theorists, this time about alleged "shadow anomalies" is nothing but lie. Face the facts. It's like that with all other arguments.
Visit websites like clavius(dot)org or ralphrenewaswrongmate(dot)com and spend some time learning.
Thousands of people who made Apollo success deserve respect, not mocking by bunch of liars and underachievers trying to make career.
nasa itself claimed, that the computers for the first moon mission, havent even had the capability of an average cell phone in the mid 90´s :-) ok..i leave you with your opionion..i got mine..bless u..
Computers used onboard spacecraft were designed for specific purpose. Those were very specialized devices. With 64 KB of ROM memory for programs, RAM which could store between 1024 and 2048 (depending on precision) variables, and 2 MHz clock, it was enough for the job. They were not playing games flying to the Moon, and they did not need faster CPU for processing information about motion of heavy spacecraft.
i dont have the time to post evidence here, that i am right. god thanks there a lot of ppl outside which already have proof, we werent there..these arguments make sense for me. they were transmitting LIVE from moon in color..wow..not even now we have that technology.. :-) i do respect what the nasa did to keep 99% of the world stupid.
exactly..u r sooo right. thats why we didnt do anything like "go to the moon" for more than 40 years again..makes sense..its like develop a a flat TV which we got now and go back to the old-style tv. does that makes sense at all? at least we are flying orbital with our ISS..
Why didn't we go back to the Moon... I should rather ask why do you hoax believers can't do 5 minutes of research with google on your own?
Moon missions were very expensive. NASA does not set their budget or priorities. Congress does. Unfortunately, science is not no. 1 priority for politicians.
Do you think your latest cell phone and apps can take you to the Moon? No, you need very expensive equipment for that and really, few things got cheaper since the 60s.
@marcito2005 Anyone with the slightest level of critical analysis would understand that unmanned exploration of the moon is more reliable, economical, and long term than a manned mission. There have been dozens of unmanned missions in the last 40 years; also from countries like India, Japan and China.
None of them have expressed any doubts that Apollo was a) possible or b) a reality.
well, thats a free world we are living isnt it? that includes free speach, at least in that country where i do live. the evidence, they havent been on that stupid moon is overwhelming. not even now they would be able to go there and to do a step for our so called precious mankind. believe what u want, i do.
I do not take away your right of free speech. I'm just addressing the value of your opinion.
You bring no arguments and no facts here. Arguments about alleged multiple light sources and other tricks done by NASA are wrong, as shown in this simple demonstration, and there is nothing you can do to prove otherwise.
So, you're just left with your faith in conspiracy, but don't tell me what I can believe.
I don't have to believe. I know Moon missions were real.
If you approach the history and documentation of Apollo program ubiased, I'm sure some day it will become obvious to you how overwhelming the evidence is.
Yes, we did go to the Moon and in my opinion, it was the greatest technical achievement of all times.
@BlisterHiker My dad woke me up to watch Apollo 11. It was the greatest moment in human history.
After more then 40 years I've not seen conclusive evidence they didn't go to the moon. Footage still holds up.
Was it possible to fake it? Perhaps. As long I can debunk shadow anomalies in 5 seconds I rather trust myself to find any proof they did. Seems nowadays everyone with a computer thinks he's worthy of endless videos about their infinite wisdom.
In my opinion, conspiracy theories are so popular because people can't often realize where is the border between fantasy and dirty politics. Politics has always been dirty business for thousands of years. Today is no different, wherever you go, but that does not give conspiracy theories any credit.
I feel jealous when people tell me they saw those Apollo events unfolding on their TVs. I'm afraid we'll have to wait some time before we experience such thrill of discovery again.
@BlisterHiker Dirty politics and conspiracy theories are exactly why I don't rule out the landings were faked. In times where they shoot the president, go to war and spy on opponents it's pretty handy to have people focused on a big event. This doesn't mean had to be faked. But imagine what they would've, could've done if at the end of the 60s the program was not ready?
One conspiracy is not the other. Some conspiracy theorists in Tripoli think their leader is stealing from them.
I know what you mean. However, conspiracies larger than a small group of people, sooner or later are disclosed.
Even disregarding all evidence for authenticity of Apollo program, that enterprise was way too massive to be faked. Adding the evidence, it becomes clear that things like that couldn't have been possibly faked.
That includes tens of hours of footage and thousands of pictures that video and photo professionals all over the world have no doubts about.
@BlisterHiker Photo professionals? Like the woman down under unable to scroll a picture?
Think about it. 99 Percent of the authenticity is based on the movements of the astronauts in 1/6th gravity. Perhaps they found a nice trick to get that effect. .
The rest? Massive enough TO be faked. Possible TO fake. Would I be surprised if they did? You bet ya. But impossible? I could say it was impossible for them to go to the moon. Turn me into a nice looking young fellow. Now that's impossible.
Effects of 1/6 g gravity seen in literally hundreds of examples, is just one part of the evidence, one of the most powerful. It's not only about the astronauts. It's also about dust and other objects they set in motion. I'm not sure how much research you did on that, but I encourage you to take a look at my videos about Apollo 14 pendulum, slow motion theory and Jack Schmitt in lunar gravity. It's all about physics, and laws of physics do not lie. They were in vacuum and 1/6 g.
Why do you even bring that woman from jw's video here? She's an art teacher, NOT photography expert, she was completely wrong and jw simply used her in a way that reminds of tricks done by other hoax advocates, like Sibrel for example.
I'm not trying to "turn you" into anybody. I'm glad we can have civilized conversation. That's the way I am. I respect everybody who is not throwing bad language at me and does not block their mind to all arguments.
@BlisterHiker You are right to be jealous ... the whole experience of watching the space program unfold was magical ... watched by the world ... a "ride" with many day to day details long forgotten ... but which added to the magic. Sadly, looking at the world today and prospects for the future, the Apollo program may well be the most profound event in human history. I feel priviledged.
Here is my new video which I hope will finally convince even the most stubborn hoax believers who have shadows fetish. It includes a screenshot from your video.
If anything on this photo would've been faked it's the shadow of the astronaut. Not the rocks. One could argue the camera position is a bit high up. The shadows point to his face. Secondly the outlines of the astronauts shadow hardly follow the contours of the surface. Also I wonder if shadows are blurred from objects further away from the ground in an airless environment. What causes this effect on earth? Dust?
The 3d demo is a bit poor if I may say so. But the accent makes up for it. .
That's a very good question. Yes, they do. Because Sun is not a point source of light, it causes shadows to display that soft zone called penumbra. That softness, like you noticed, is more visible when distance between the object and the surface is greater. Its visibility, of course, depends also on how close we are to the shadow (physically or with lens magnification).
@BlisterHiker Right. Penumbra. When you take a shot of your own shadow the legs have sharper edges because they're closer to the ground. It's difficult to say how much of the legs we see. With the camera mounted inches before the chest it must be from knee height or something. Or you would have to bent over a lot. That crater must've been a 70 degree drop at least. But I'm not sure. Maybe experiment myself.
- and that's what we see there. Take a look at AS17-136-20744HR. Shadow of the legs is visibly sharper than shadow of his helmet.
"With the camera mounted inches before the chest it must be from knee height or something."
- wrong. Camera was titled down and the surface itself was not flat, but lowering to a small basin. chmitt had to lean forward to point the camera down.
@BlisterHiker Motion blur of the astronaut? don't think so. Other objects would've been less sharp. Which brings the question why NASA relied on chest mounted camera's instead of a tripod. You want the best pictures or not?
The surface does change shadows a lot on rocks, holes. It looks a bit smooth here. But again, hard to tell.
Must be conspiracy, right?... OK. I will answer this question too.
1. They didn't need tripod in those lighting conditions. With shutter speed of 1/125 or 1/250, you don't need it to take good pictures. Btw, when I wrote about motion blur, I used word "little".
2. Tripod equals additional weight, which they simply couldn't affort to take.
3. Cameras attached to spacesuits where much more handy. Plain and simple.
I placed the point of view on the chest of the model. Moving the camera slightly down or up doesn't change anything.
"What causes this effect on earth?"
In addition to soft shadow edge caused by the size of the light source, our atmosphere disperses light in all directions, making that effect more visible.
"3d demo is a bit poor"
That's exactly how much is needed to show the idea. Next time, I will add wrinkles on spacesuit ;-)
@BlisterHiker The astronauts right elbow seems to be bent towards eye height. To be sure I would have to buy a space suit and honestly I don't have the money for that so would end up with a bad copy. Wrinkles you don't need. Notice wrinkles in the shadow? It's almost like he's wearing tights. Effect probably.
Thanks for your responds. I just wanted to show other things could be more suspicious. Especially astronauts wearing tights! Who did the selection procedure?
- what you see there is as expected. He leaned forward and that's why the shadow of his hand reaching to the camera appears at different agle than usually.
"Right. Penumbra"
- yes, that's what happens there. We see the same effect in hundreds and hundreds of other pictures from the Moon.
In some of your words, I think you're just trying to sound "funny". I won't comment on that.
Bottom line: there is nothing wrong in the picture. It's genuine. I'm sure you and other hoax believers would be trying hard to find things that looks "suspicious".
I suggest the following:
Take your camera, press it against your chest, lean forward and take pictures of your shadow. You will see how it works even on flat floor, but if you go outside and find surface shape and light similar to that picture from the Moon, your results will be even closer.
It's easier than that, if there are so many shadows, why the astronaut and all other objects do not have one? They used focused lights on particular objects and it did not affect anything else on the image? And WHY would they do that? Nonsense.
You're 100% right. It is truly pathetic that Moon hoax believers use arguments like "multiple shadows" at all, regardless if they are really that ignorant and lie on purpose.
Even a child would notice small rocks around that "double dasher" cast single shadows. I guess NASA had some special interest in lighting that rock from two angles! ;-)
Hoax believers are very "creative". Mythbusters explained very well what causes shadows to appear non-parallel. This case is somewhat different as shadows appear to converge at nearly 90°.
Their lies are infectious, and that's why action is required to address them.
The rock is at the left of the man & on a downward slope so the light source from behind the man would not be able to cast a right to left shadow, if the anything the rock would cast a shadow downhill at a 45* angle from the man.
@MYTHECIES I think it is absolutely incredible that despite a careful demonstration, you think in your head that this doesn't work, based on what? Your own tests?
Thanks for telling, I didn't know that... I also didn't know that flat desk does not equal real topography.
You see, certain things can be easily demonstrated even with such simple means as a lamp and a few objects, but if you understood that, you wouldn't be here.
Again, when approx. will you have that video ready?
@NASAvsPETE No Pete, I am actually trying to save you time and embarassment. But never mind. You go on ahead; don't bother with a google image search AT ALL, just get out there and get your experiment on.
@NASAvsPETE Good god you are thick. This happened last week with some dunderhead, too. He was blithering about converging shadows and how it was impossible on Earth. I told him, for his own benefit, to do a google image search for 'long shadows' or 'beach shadows'. And just like you are doing, he didn't go and do it. Instead he bleated on and on about a conspiracy, and descended into irrelevant accusations about collusion.
I presume you are unable to follow even simple instructions.
I think it is no surprise that many people give faith to some complex, or virtually impossible to verify aspects of various conspiracy theories. It's in human nature to look for sensations. What is completely beyond me, is the fact so many people are so damn dumb to accept bullsh.t that can be verified literally with a sheet of paper and wooden block under a desk lamp.
I agree. He will be quite desperate on that beach, doing all he can to avoid the results he doesn't want to see.
@NASAvsPETE S, I presume you didn't follow my suggestion and do a simple google image search, as usual. I don't even have to leave my seat to see Blister is correct.
I'm not sure if you're bright enough to notice that shape of the objects and the surface itself has certain effects on shadows. That's why my results do not look exactly like what we see in 20744. That was not my point. It is not necessary to model everything precisely to show the idea which you apparently can't comprehend.
Now, I give you some time to prove that I cheated. If you don't show precise proof, I will block you. I welcome normal discussion, but I don't tolerate LIARS.
You really tried that experiment? I don't think so. If you really did, you wouldn't be here lying.
Also, go and watch?v=Fy9rkc8jq0k
At 9:00 in that video, I show a physical model, casting shadow at 90 degrees to the left.
Now, if you claim I manipulated something in this 3D model, that I changed the light, PROVE IT.
Do you see any light changes? The objects and surface in my model are not the same as in picture from the Moon, but even 7 yo kid should get the idea.
@NASAvsPETE The funniest thing about this, is that anyone can do a google image search for 'long shadows' or 'beach shadows' and see converging shadows in thousands of examples, thus understanding that you are a fucking moron who leaps to the defense of poor thinking.
Go on then tiger, go and see for yourself exactly how wrong you have it. Then you can come back with some meaningless comment, never acknowledging that you fucked up. You do that so well.
@NASAvsPETE -didn't you get enough riding crop beatings as a kid.
I submit I can easily steal your non exsistant wife from you while simutaneously winking at your mother & causing her to lay down in the submissive mode ...and who's to say I won't step on her uterus as punishment for going to full term with you.
There are other possibilities yet they all seem to have you either attending to your boot stricken mother or explaining to the ER staff how you were slapped unconcious & pissed yourself
@NASAvsPETE 3:38 did you notice how the surface in the actual photo is Bowl shaped? just like the sim at 3:01, and UNLIKE the flat surface used by jw in his sim. This is a common occurrence in jw's work; include only those details which support the conclusion, ignore any which cast doubt on it.
I strongly suggest you take two sticks and go play with them outside on some sunny day.
You know, stick them in sand at various angles when the sun is behind your back and watch the shadows they cast. I assure you, with enough effort, you will see how it works, "expert".
No wonder you see something wrong with my demonstration.
Sorry, you are wrong just like your idol jw is, and even worse for people like you, we're not talking about rocket science here but very simple things!
Pretty good demonstration. Really liked the stereo image.
That 'double' shadowed rock was always a stupid claim, was it supposed to be magic light which casts a double shadow only on one rock and considering the image is part of a panorama where exactly were the other lights? Did they set up and move these lights on every frame taken.
Dumb. So dumb it is hard to believe they really believe it.
@destin325 I dunno, I find these people watch a hoax video and just decide to throw away all critical analysis, as if there is some guarantee that the hoax video is completely accurate.
Then you ask them to simply do a google image search on 'long shadows' or 'beach shadows', and either they slink off, or they shift up a gear. It's the insane ones who appear to have that high gear.
The Apollo hoax is another conspiracy theory among many, and attracts anti-government types. I don't think there are many gears being shifted. The hard core are mainly paranoid nuts. I think one of our hard line hoax believers here at YT is in an institute with mental illness. He pops up and goes AWOL for a while. I think the AWOL is him having his internet taken away.
"I find these people watch a hoax video and just decide to throw away all critical analysis, "
though I agree with almost everything you said...the above quote is one that im not sure I would use...i see why you put it, and I agree....but in the same sense..I think that hoax folks are using "too much" of it sometimes.
....its almost like being bi-polar...either they are too loose (yeah, just fake the whole thing...no biggish) or too tight... (LOOK AT THE FU****G SHADOWS!!)
good job. not to mention the mirrors placed on the moon for laser range finding, i guess some people believe these just magically appeared.
dasraiser 7 months ago
@dasraiser
Mirrors (retroreflectors) alone do not prove people walked on the Moon, but they add to mountains of evidence confirming Moon landings.
Conspiracy Theorists like to claim those mirrors were placed there robotically, similarly to what Russians did with their Luna rovers, but they can't show even one piece of proof for their theory.
Making sensational claims is easy. It makes Conspiracy Theorists feel more important. It elevates their egos and helps them to forget about their ignorance.
BlisterHiker 7 months ago
Great, professional video. Well done.
DrTWG 9 months ago
In the clip you show the top shadows are at best 45 degrees and not 90 degrees to the astronaut as shown in the moon landing picture.
123coining123 9 months ago
@123coining123
If you look carefully, the rock in the picture from the Moon does not actually cast its shadow full 90 degrees to the left.
What we see is also influenced by the shape of the object and the surface, not only by position of the viewer, angle of the object and light source.
Actually, upper and lower line of the shadows in my model converge at 90 degrees.
No conspiracy there, just geometry which Moon hoax believers apparently don't understand.
Btw, check my follow-up video.
BlisterHiker 9 months ago
@pete
Here is my new video. I still save some hope you realize one day how wrong you are and save whatever dignity you got left:
watch?v=rHnCfFcoIbo
I encourage you to do the same experiment and see how it works for yourself. Hoax theory you so fanatically believe is plain garbage and examples like these show it clearly.
No tricks, no secondary light sources are necessary to make shadows appear at unusual angles. Learn the facts and stop making ass of yourself.
BlisterHiker 11 months ago
@BlisterHiker, the outcome of your "experiment" does not match the original photo so you have not proved anything. I am not a hoax person but better evidence is required!
123coining123 9 months ago
@123coining123
That was only a simple demonstration, and it does illustrate that shadows may appear to converge at 90° to shadow of photographer, and even at 180° to each other!
Btw, in my follow-up to this video, I show what happens when we use more realistic object shape.
I also demonstrate the same principle in real conditions, on a beach.
Anybody who understands geometry does not need any evidence, but these videos show it for people who want to learn what happens in such situations.
BlisterHiker 9 months ago
i make my own opinion. unmanned means without living persons, right? that makes senses, cuz only the us were capable to achieve that trip to the moon.. :-) 40 years later no other country could go to the moon..but the us did..wow..what a reality u are livin in
marcito2005 11 months ago
@marcito2005
Again, Apollo program took place because it was highly political. Everybody knows that.
Today there is no immediate reason for founding very expensive program like that to send people to the Moon for only a few days. NASA has much more ambitious plans, like establishing permanent or long term human presence on the Moon (lunar outpost) and exploration of Mars.
Learn the facts and try to notice nothing you said actually shows even one bit of evidence against Apollo missions.
BlisterHiker 11 months ago
i wish u all the best with your you-tube channel :-)god bless NASA
marcito2005 11 months ago
@marcito2005
Listen man, stop joking and if you can, focus on the subject of this video.
Another argument used by conspiracy theorists, this time about alleged "shadow anomalies" is nothing but lie. Face the facts. It's like that with all other arguments.
Visit websites like clavius(dot)org or ralphrenewaswrongmate(dot)com and spend some time learning.
Thousands of people who made Apollo success deserve respect, not mocking by bunch of liars and underachievers trying to make career.
BlisterHiker 11 months ago
nasa itself claimed, that the computers for the first moon mission, havent even had the capability of an average cell phone in the mid 90´s :-) ok..i leave you with your opionion..i got mine..bless u..
marcito2005 11 months ago
@marcito2005
Computers used onboard spacecraft were designed for specific purpose. Those were very specialized devices. With 64 KB of ROM memory for programs, RAM which could store between 1024 and 2048 (depending on precision) variables, and 2 MHz clock, it was enough for the job. They were not playing games flying to the Moon, and they did not need faster CPU for processing information about motion of heavy spacecraft.
NASA is not hiding anything here, as you noticed.
Learn the facts.
BlisterHiker 11 months ago
i dont have the time to post evidence here, that i am right. god thanks there a lot of ppl outside which already have proof, we werent there..these arguments make sense for me. they were transmitting LIVE from moon in color..wow..not even now we have that technology.. :-) i do respect what the nasa did to keep 99% of the world stupid.
marcito2005 11 months ago
"there a lot of ppl outside which already have proof"
@marcito2005
Really? Could you name a few of them?
I've been interested in this subject for many years, and so far no conspiracy theorist came up with even one bit of solid evidence.
Sorry, lies, speculations and pseudo-science are not the evidence and really, people like you have nothing else to offer in this matter.
BlisterHiker 11 months ago
exactly..u r sooo right. thats why we didnt do anything like "go to the moon" for more than 40 years again..makes sense..its like develop a a flat TV which we got now and go back to the old-style tv. does that makes sense at all? at least we are flying orbital with our ISS..
marcito2005 11 months ago
@marcito2005
Why didn't we go back to the Moon... I should rather ask why do you hoax believers can't do 5 minutes of research with google on your own?
Moon missions were very expensive. NASA does not set their budget or priorities. Congress does. Unfortunately, science is not no. 1 priority for politicians.
Do you think your latest cell phone and apps can take you to the Moon? No, you need very expensive equipment for that and really, few things got cheaper since the 60s.
Learn the facts.
BlisterHiker 11 months ago
@marcito2005 Anyone with the slightest level of critical analysis would understand that unmanned exploration of the moon is more reliable, economical, and long term than a manned mission. There have been dozens of unmanned missions in the last 40 years; also from countries like India, Japan and China.
None of them have expressed any doubts that Apollo was a) possible or b) a reality.
Have some sense, will you?
krisdevalle 11 months ago
well, thats a free world we are living isnt it? that includes free speach, at least in that country where i do live. the evidence, they havent been on that stupid moon is overwhelming. not even now they would be able to go there and to do a step for our so called precious mankind. believe what u want, i do.
marcito2005 11 months ago
@marcito2005
I do not take away your right of free speech. I'm just addressing the value of your opinion.
You bring no arguments and no facts here. Arguments about alleged multiple light sources and other tricks done by NASA are wrong, as shown in this simple demonstration, and there is nothing you can do to prove otherwise.
So, you're just left with your faith in conspiracy, but don't tell me what I can believe.
I don't have to believe. I know Moon missions were real.
BlisterHiker 11 months ago
who still believes,that the us were on the moon should wait for the next hoax episode..the mars..maybe the gonna do the fake in a better way
marcito2005 11 months ago
@marcito2005
Opinions like yours are worth as much as all arguments for Moon hoax conspiracy: zero.
Take a look at video response of your fellow hoax believer and see what kind of counter arguments he presents...
Moon missions were real. No evidence against it for 40+ years and counting. Mountains of evidence for it!
BlisterHiker 11 months ago
@NASAvsPETE watch?v=VMpl9I_nyUs
This does not mean I'm becoming an apollogist
hauserkaspar 11 months ago
"This does not mean I'm becoming an apollogist"
@hauserkaspar
If you approach the history and documentation of Apollo program ubiased, I'm sure some day it will become obvious to you how overwhelming the evidence is.
Yes, we did go to the Moon and in my opinion, it was the greatest technical achievement of all times.
Nice video!
BlisterHiker 11 months ago
@BlisterHiker My dad woke me up to watch Apollo 11. It was the greatest moment in human history.
After more then 40 years I've not seen conclusive evidence they didn't go to the moon. Footage still holds up.
Was it possible to fake it? Perhaps. As long I can debunk shadow anomalies in 5 seconds I rather trust myself to find any proof they did. Seems nowadays everyone with a computer thinks he's worthy of endless videos about their infinite wisdom.
hauserkaspar 11 months ago
@hauserkaspar
In my opinion, conspiracy theories are so popular because people can't often realize where is the border between fantasy and dirty politics. Politics has always been dirty business for thousands of years. Today is no different, wherever you go, but that does not give conspiracy theories any credit.
I feel jealous when people tell me they saw those Apollo events unfolding on their TVs. I'm afraid we'll have to wait some time before we experience such thrill of discovery again.
BlisterHiker 11 months ago
@BlisterHiker Dirty politics and conspiracy theories are exactly why I don't rule out the landings were faked. In times where they shoot the president, go to war and spy on opponents it's pretty handy to have people focused on a big event. This doesn't mean had to be faked. But imagine what they would've, could've done if at the end of the 60s the program was not ready?
One conspiracy is not the other. Some conspiracy theorists in Tripoli think their leader is stealing from them.
hauserkaspar 11 months ago
@hauserkaspar
I know what you mean. However, conspiracies larger than a small group of people, sooner or later are disclosed.
Even disregarding all evidence for authenticity of Apollo program, that enterprise was way too massive to be faked. Adding the evidence, it becomes clear that things like that couldn't have been possibly faked.
That includes tens of hours of footage and thousands of pictures that video and photo professionals all over the world have no doubts about.
You be the judge.
BlisterHiker 11 months ago
@BlisterHiker Photo professionals? Like the woman down under unable to scroll a picture?
Think about it. 99 Percent of the authenticity is based on the movements of the astronauts in 1/6th gravity. Perhaps they found a nice trick to get that effect. .
The rest? Massive enough TO be faked. Possible TO fake. Would I be surprised if they did? You bet ya. But impossible? I could say it was impossible for them to go to the moon. Turn me into a nice looking young fellow. Now that's impossible.
hauserkaspar 11 months ago
@hauserkaspar
Effects of 1/6 g gravity seen in literally hundreds of examples, is just one part of the evidence, one of the most powerful. It's not only about the astronauts. It's also about dust and other objects they set in motion. I'm not sure how much research you did on that, but I encourage you to take a look at my videos about Apollo 14 pendulum, slow motion theory and Jack Schmitt in lunar gravity. It's all about physics, and laws of physics do not lie. They were in vacuum and 1/6 g.
BlisterHiker 11 months ago
@hauserkaspar
Why do you even bring that woman from jw's video here? She's an art teacher, NOT photography expert, she was completely wrong and jw simply used her in a way that reminds of tricks done by other hoax advocates, like Sibrel for example.
I'm not trying to "turn you" into anybody. I'm glad we can have civilized conversation. That's the way I am. I respect everybody who is not throwing bad language at me and does not block their mind to all arguments.
BlisterHiker 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hauserkaspar
'Dirty politics and conspiracy theories are exactly why I don't rule out the landings were faked.'
Don't forget your rather large gaps in your understanding of science.
Monkeyboysdontknow 11 months ago
@BlisterHiker You are right to be jealous ... the whole experience of watching the space program unfold was magical ... watched by the world ... a "ride" with many day to day details long forgotten ... but which added to the magic. Sadly, looking at the world today and prospects for the future, the Apollo program may well be the most profound event in human history. I feel priviledged.
SearchBucket 11 months ago
"Apollo program may well be the most profound event in human history"
@SearchBucket
Lucky you to have witnessed the thrill!
It is sad in a way that we owe it to high political tension and competition of that era, not just bright act of human mind and spirit.
Without big political reasons and Soviet pressure, Apollo most likely would've never been founded, imo.
What can we do... Politicians are politicians, and they are in turn derivative of what we as society do and choose.
Cheers.
BlisterHiker 11 months ago
"Apollo program may well be the most profound event in human history"
@SearchBucket
Lucky you to have witnessed the thrill!
It is sad in a way that we owe it to high political tension and competition of that era, not just bright act of human mind and spirit.
What can we do... Politicians are politicians, and they are in turn derivative of what we as society do and choose.
Cheers.
BlisterHiker 11 months ago
@hauserkaspar
Here is my new video which I hope will finally convince even the most stubborn hoax believers who have shadows fetish. It includes a screenshot from your video.
watch?v=rHnCfFcoIbo
BlisterHiker 11 months ago
If anything on this photo would've been faked it's the shadow of the astronaut. Not the rocks. One could argue the camera position is a bit high up. The shadows point to his face. Secondly the outlines of the astronauts shadow hardly follow the contours of the surface. Also I wonder if shadows are blurred from objects further away from the ground in an airless environment. What causes this effect on earth? Dust?
The 3d demo is a bit poor if I may say so. But the accent makes up for it. .
hauserkaspar 11 months ago
"I wonder if shadows are blurred from objects further away from the ground in an airless environment"
@hauserkaspar
That's a very good question. Yes, they do. Because Sun is not a point source of light, it causes shadows to display that soft zone called penumbra. That softness, like you noticed, is more visible when distance between the object and the surface is greater. Its visibility, of course, depends also on how close we are to the shadow (physically or with lens magnification).
>
BlisterHiker 11 months ago
@BlisterHiker Right. Penumbra. When you take a shot of your own shadow the legs have sharper edges because they're closer to the ground. It's difficult to say how much of the legs we see. With the camera mounted inches before the chest it must be from knee height or something. Or you would have to bent over a lot. That crater must've been a 70 degree drop at least. But I'm not sure. Maybe experiment myself.
hauserkaspar 11 months ago
"you take a shot of your own shadow the legs have sharper edges because they're closer to the ground"
@hauserkaspar
- and that's what we see there. Take a look at AS17-136-20744HR. Shadow of the legs is visibly sharper than shadow of his helmet.
"With the camera mounted inches before the chest it must be from knee height or something."
- wrong. Camera was titled down and the surface itself was not flat, but lowering to a small basin. chmitt had to lean forward to point the camera down.
>
BlisterHiker 11 months ago
@hauserkaspar > cont.
I think that motion blur of the astronaut himself also adds a little to that soft edge of the shadow. After all, he was not a stationary object.
We see that effect in many pictures showing shadows of the LM, flags, large rocks and other objects.
"outlines of the astronauts shadow hardly follow the contours of the surface"
Surface can't do much more than make shadow appear longer in that case because the camera, light source and the object are in the same plane.
>
BlisterHiker 11 months ago
@BlisterHiker Motion blur of the astronaut? don't think so. Other objects would've been less sharp. Which brings the question why NASA relied on chest mounted camera's instead of a tripod. You want the best pictures or not?
The surface does change shadows a lot on rocks, holes. It looks a bit smooth here. But again, hard to tell.
hauserkaspar 11 months ago
"why NASA relied on chest mounted camera's instead of a tripod"
@hauserkaspar
Must be conspiracy, right?... OK. I will answer this question too.
1. They didn't need tripod in those lighting conditions. With shutter speed of 1/125 or 1/250, you don't need it to take good pictures. Btw, when I wrote about motion blur, I used word "little".
2. Tripod equals additional weight, which they simply couldn't affort to take.
3. Cameras attached to spacesuits where much more handy. Plain and simple.
BlisterHiker 11 months ago
@hauserkaspar > cont.
"camera position is a bit high up"
I placed the point of view on the chest of the model. Moving the camera slightly down or up doesn't change anything.
"What causes this effect on earth?"
In addition to soft shadow edge caused by the size of the light source, our atmosphere disperses light in all directions, making that effect more visible.
"3d demo is a bit poor"
That's exactly how much is needed to show the idea. Next time, I will add wrinkles on spacesuit ;-)
BlisterHiker 11 months ago
@BlisterHiker The astronauts right elbow seems to be bent towards eye height. To be sure I would have to buy a space suit and honestly I don't have the money for that so would end up with a bad copy. Wrinkles you don't need. Notice wrinkles in the shadow? It's almost like he's wearing tights. Effect probably.
Thanks for your responds. I just wanted to show other things could be more suspicious. Especially astronauts wearing tights! Who did the selection procedure?
hauserkaspar 11 months ago
"The astronauts right elbow seems to be bent towards eye height"
@hauserkaspar
- what you see there is as expected. He leaned forward and that's why the shadow of his hand reaching to the camera appears at different agle than usually.
"Right. Penumbra"
- yes, that's what happens there. We see the same effect in hundreds and hundreds of other pictures from the Moon.
In some of your words, I think you're just trying to sound "funny". I won't comment on that.
>
BlisterHiker 11 months ago
@hauserkaspar >
Bottom line: there is nothing wrong in the picture. It's genuine. I'm sure you and other hoax believers would be trying hard to find things that looks "suspicious".
I suggest the following:
Take your camera, press it against your chest, lean forward and take pictures of your shadow. You will see how it works even on flat floor, but if you go outside and find surface shape and light similar to that picture from the Moon, your results will be even closer.
BlisterHiker 11 months ago
Hey Blister, I hope you're hurting from Pete's stinging deconstruction of your OH WAIT NO VIDEO never mind.
I presume he could be slowly clawing his way to comprehension, but it might take a while.
krisdevalle 11 months ago
@krisdevalle
Pete is probably busy now, weighing his strategic options...
BlisterHiker 11 months ago
@BlisterHiker Perhaps he is trying to argue with light and shadow.
krisdevalle 11 months ago
Infact, the FIRSt person that did land on moon LEFT his boots there and still there at the moment.
TheMuaz28 11 months ago
Mythbusters and this are idiots. THE SHADOW IS NOT A FAKE
TheMuaz28 11 months ago
It's easier than that, if there are so many shadows, why the astronaut and all other objects do not have one? They used focused lights on particular objects and it did not affect anything else on the image? And WHY would they do that? Nonsense.
georgH 11 months ago
@georgH I meant all objecte have only one.
georgH 11 months ago
@georgH
You're 100% right. It is truly pathetic that Moon hoax believers use arguments like "multiple shadows" at all, regardless if they are really that ignorant and lie on purpose.
Even a child would notice small rocks around that "double dasher" cast single shadows. I guess NASA had some special interest in lighting that rock from two angles! ;-)
BlisterHiker 11 months ago
@NASAvsPETE How's your new video going? I presume from this vehement reply that it might not be ready by Monday.
krisdevalle 11 months ago
"Myth busters were paid to debunk by NASA a cool 1.8 million"
@pete
If you could prove that bs, that would be something!
You better save your energy and focus on your upcoming video proving that I cheated...
BlisterHiker 11 months ago
Mythbusters already debunked this. Put it to bed once and for all.
MrMKH2010 11 months ago
@MrMKH2010
Hoax believers are very "creative". Mythbusters explained very well what causes shadows to appear non-parallel. This case is somewhat different as shadows appear to converge at nearly 90°.
Their lies are infectious, and that's why action is required to address them.
BlisterHiker 11 months ago
The rock is at the left of the man & on a downward slope so the light source from behind the man would not be able to cast a right to left shadow, if the anything the rock would cast a shadow downhill at a 45* angle from the man.
MYTHECIES 11 months ago
@MYTHECIES I think it is absolutely incredible that despite a careful demonstration, you think in your head that this doesn't work, based on what? Your own tests?
krisdevalle 11 months ago
"A desk lamp does not simulate the sun"
@pete
Thanks for telling, I didn't know that... I also didn't know that flat desk does not equal real topography.
You see, certain things can be easily demonstrated even with such simple means as a lamp and a few objects, but if you understood that, you wouldn't be here.
Again, when approx. will you have that video ready?
BlisterHiker 11 months ago
@NASAvsPETE No Pete, I am actually trying to save you time and embarassment. But never mind. You go on ahead; don't bother with a google image search AT ALL, just get out there and get your experiment on.
krisdevalle 11 months ago
@pete
When approx. will you have those results ready?
BlisterHiker 11 months ago
@pete
If you want to prove I cheated, you have everything you need here, the whole geometry.
You can even recreate PHYSICAL SET, as seen in my earlier video (watch?v=Fy9rkc8jq0k) Did I cheat that one too?...
WHY would I do those fly-arounds at 3:05 and 4:44 if I was cheating? Scratch your empty head and think about it!
Again, prove that I cheated. I'm waiting, but I know you can't prove it!
On the other hand, if you don't do your video honestly, I will expose your lies with no mercy.
BlisterHiker 11 months ago
@NASAvsPETE Good god you are thick. This happened last week with some dunderhead, too. He was blithering about converging shadows and how it was impossible on Earth. I told him, for his own benefit, to do a google image search for 'long shadows' or 'beach shadows'. And just like you are doing, he didn't go and do it. Instead he bleated on and on about a conspiracy, and descended into irrelevant accusations about collusion.
I presume you are unable to follow even simple instructions.
krisdevalle 11 months ago
@krisdevalle
Do you think pete has got that minimum of honesty in him to do his experiment honestly and show the results?
I doubt it, but I'm looking forward to seeing how much he manages to bend the truth...
BlisterHiker 11 months ago
@BlisterHiker I don't know what he looks like, but I'm picturing some fairly dull guy looking confused and irritated on a beach somewhere.
krisdevalle 11 months ago
@krisdevalle
I think it is no surprise that many people give faith to some complex, or virtually impossible to verify aspects of various conspiracy theories. It's in human nature to look for sensations. What is completely beyond me, is the fact so many people are so damn dumb to accept bullsh.t that can be verified literally with a sheet of paper and wooden block under a desk lamp.
I agree. He will be quite desperate on that beach, doing all he can to avoid the results he doesn't want to see.
BlisterHiker 11 months ago
@NASAvsPETE S, I presume you didn't follow my suggestion and do a simple google image search, as usual. I don't even have to leave my seat to see Blister is correct.
krisdevalle 11 months ago
@pete >
I'm not sure if you're bright enough to notice that shape of the objects and the surface itself has certain effects on shadows. That's why my results do not look exactly like what we see in 20744. That was not my point. It is not necessary to model everything precisely to show the idea which you apparently can't comprehend.
Now, I give you some time to prove that I cheated. If you don't show precise proof, I will block you. I welcome normal discussion, but I don't tolerate LIARS.
BlisterHiker 11 months ago
@pete
You really tried that experiment? I don't think so. If you really did, you wouldn't be here lying.
Also, go and watch?v=Fy9rkc8jq0k
At 9:00 in that video, I show a physical model, casting shadow at 90 degrees to the left.
Now, if you claim I manipulated something in this 3D model, that I changed the light, PROVE IT.
Do you see any light changes? The objects and surface in my model are not the same as in picture from the Moon, but even 7 yo kid should get the idea.
>
BlisterHiker 11 months ago
@NASAvsPETE The funniest thing about this, is that anyone can do a google image search for 'long shadows' or 'beach shadows' and see converging shadows in thousands of examples, thus understanding that you are a fucking moron who leaps to the defense of poor thinking.
Go on then tiger, go and see for yourself exactly how wrong you have it. Then you can come back with some meaningless comment, never acknowledging that you fucked up. You do that so well.
krisdevalle 11 months ago
@NASAvsPETE -didn't you get enough riding crop beatings as a kid.
I submit I can easily steal your non exsistant wife from you while simutaneously winking at your mother & causing her to lay down in the submissive mode ...and who's to say I won't step on her uterus as punishment for going to full term with you.
There are other possibilities yet they all seem to have you either attending to your boot stricken mother or explaining to the ER staff how you were slapped unconcious & pissed yourself
MightySaturn5 11 months ago
@NASAvsPETE 3:38 did you notice how the surface in the actual photo is Bowl shaped? just like the sim at 3:01, and UNLIKE the flat surface used by jw in his sim. This is a common occurrence in jw's work; include only those details which support the conclusion, ignore any which cast doubt on it.
occhamite 11 months ago
@NASAvsPETE
I strongly suggest you take two sticks and go play with them outside on some sunny day.
You know, stick them in sand at various angles when the sun is behind your back and watch the shadows they cast. I assure you, with enough effort, you will see how it works, "expert".
No wonder you see something wrong with my demonstration.
Sorry, you are wrong just like your idol jw is, and even worse for people like you, we're not talking about rocket science here but very simple things!
BlisterHiker 11 months ago
Pretty good demonstration. Really liked the stereo image.
That 'double' shadowed rock was always a stupid claim, was it supposed to be magic light which casts a double shadow only on one rock and considering the image is part of a panorama where exactly were the other lights? Did they set up and move these lights on every frame taken.
Dumb. So dumb it is hard to believe they really believe it.
ytmoog 11 months ago 5
Solid again BH. And .. what happened to that 'C' rock..?!
Rob260259 11 months ago
@Rob260259
'C' rock? You're confusing me. I thought it was 'A' ;-)
watch?v=CQOgubEigS8
BlisterHiker 11 months ago
@BlisterHiker
:-)
You got me with that one...
Rob260259 11 months ago
sometimes i wonder if hoaxers ever step outside and grasp what is reality...
to fake the moon landing and everything that is ....total fakery....
yet "overlook" something like not using 2 light sources to take staged photos.
there is ...youtube...then there is "real life" ...some people cannot distinguish between photos and what was really going on when they were taken.
but..that goes back to .....book smarts vs common sense.... do they not see the gravity of how much it would have taken?
destin325 11 months ago
@destin325 I dunno, I find these people watch a hoax video and just decide to throw away all critical analysis, as if there is some guarantee that the hoax video is completely accurate.
Then you ask them to simply do a google image search on 'long shadows' or 'beach shadows', and either they slink off, or they shift up a gear. It's the insane ones who appear to have that high gear.
krisdevalle 11 months ago
@krisdevalle
The Apollo hoax is another conspiracy theory among many, and attracts anti-government types. I don't think there are many gears being shifted. The hard core are mainly paranoid nuts. I think one of our hard line hoax believers here at YT is in an institute with mental illness. He pops up and goes AWOL for a while. I think the AWOL is him having his internet taken away.
lukequixotesanjose 11 months ago
@krisdevalle
"I find these people watch a hoax video and just decide to throw away all critical analysis, "
though I agree with almost everything you said...the above quote is one that im not sure I would use...i see why you put it, and I agree....but in the same sense..I think that hoax folks are using "too much" of it sometimes.
....its almost like being bi-polar...either they are too loose (yeah, just fake the whole thing...no biggish) or too tight... (LOOK AT THE FU****G SHADOWS!!)
destin325 11 months ago
So simple a third grader could understand. Someone might need to dumb it down for KanGaBoss and Company.
Another great video BH. Thanks for the sweet bonus links!
ProppaGannis 11 months ago
"Someone might need to dumb it down for KanGaBoss and Company"
@ProppaGannis
vsPETE is doing that already, illuminating us with his "expertise"... LOL!
I hope he listens to my advice and goes outside to play with two sticks in sand.
BlisterHiker 11 months ago
hi,
the cgi is very good and so ist the whole video.
lokuzzz 11 months ago
Thanks for the links to R2W2M. I'm getting a few hundred hits per day now.
lukequixotesanjose 11 months ago
They are too stubborn, you know it, I know it, they know. Good presentation by the way.
lukequixotesanjose 11 months ago
Very nicely done. Straightforward and to the point.
GoneToPlaid 11 months ago
Great video:)
markjh2005 11 months ago
Hey, B, your computer graphic was awesome!
Featured, man!
Astrobrant2 11 months ago
@Astrobrant2
Thanks!
BlisterHiker 11 months ago
@BlisterHiker Really, this was a great job. Thanks for making it.
Astrobrant2 11 months ago