Mythbusters Moon Hoax Photo Explanations

Those two photos are like all "proof" for conspiracy - they may look conclusive, but they prove nothing to those who understand the processes at work.

Also check the intensity of the light it is far brighter in their model, yet their model is luminated less
HO HO HO Definately not busted, and down right suspictious if you ask me buddy. YOU COVER IS BLOWN

I had a good laugh at the dummy in the shadow. What I noticed was the subtle way they had placed their model almost on the edge of the shadow and light, yet in the alledged lunar shot the astronaut is well inside the shadow area. Come on guys you are employing shady tactics here. Have a look and check how they use the edge of the shadow to catch as much light as possible. They are making the evidence fit, rather than presenting accurate honest evidence.

SpreadingtheMuse, don't know where you are coming from here. it was done inside with a superlight alright.
You cannot argue with the angles on relatively flat ground. Let's check numbers.
A light source at 20metres will cause the shadows to diverge, and at 14 metre from the light objects and at 14 metre apart it will cast shadows at an angle 45deg from each other. Now with the light source at 93 million miles the angle at at the same spot will be 10^-9deg. Thats parallel eh.

@guesser7 , you're missing the point of this demonstration. It's not to compare the angles of shadows from a light 20 meters away with angles of shadows from a light 93-million miles away. It's a comparison of shadows on level ground with shadows on UN-level ground! They have effectively done that!

A fine guess.
Sadly you are wrong.

And you can see that in the video @2:42; their initial picture on a flat surface with nicely parallel shadows.
This is because their light source is a nice focussed spotlight, not a point source.
Then at 4:00 you can see the changes made by altering the terrain.
Simple as that.

Dear Mythbuster guys. You didn't have to go to this trouble to fool us, a bit of trig proves it was all a fake and it is NOT BUSTED
You see there is a difference between a star 93 million miles away and a spotlight 10 feet away. Come on guys get your act together sometimes the minature scales don't cut it.

guesser7, why don't you give us the "trig". Show us your amazing calculation.

Whether this light is 93 million miles away or 10 feet, an angle is an angle. The light was not moved, but the shadow moved. They demonstrated how. shadows CLEARLY change on an uneven surface. You see it every day.

Alright! Just what i was thinking!
@"Guesser7" come on, dude! Show us the calculations that you claim to have. If it was sooo easy... pffff :p

If trig is all it takes, then I wish it would be presented by an actual professional photographer and not the amatuers and newbs who frequently quote big words they dont understand and misuse.
If the pros dont have any trouble, we're not listening to the amateurs.

Besides, theres a million videos here on youtube that swear the "set" was OUTSIDE, not in a studio. If you cant keep a consistent story amongst yourselves, you'll never convince the rest of us.