Shadows on the Moon - Case Closed

Follow-up to my Shadows on the Moon - Revisited video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZB-DosUGeY

Unusual shadow angles, claimed by Moon Hoax Theory advocates to be proof of hoax, are perfectly natural phenomena, which shows again the Conspiracy Theory is nonsense.

For more information, please watch other videos explaining the subject:

From Boozyscientist:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8IkdZ8yzUo

From jamesbooty:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2idM04R47lw

From hauserkaspar:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMpl9I_nyUs

My earlier videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4T0q5skcUg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fy9rkc8jq0k

Sweet bonus:
MoonFaker Chronicles Episode One Act III
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xdrpwf_moonfaker-chronicles-episode-one-ac_fun
http://www.myspace.com/kaleljordankent

Want to learn more? Visit the channels I subscribe to and enjoy the ride!

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Apollo
• Moon
• landing
• hoax
• conspiracy
• theory
• shadows
• jarrah
• white
• photography

[123coining123]

Why can't we see the full length of your shadow? If it has no length then we know what the answer is, the angle of the sun. If you had done this with a full length shadow, as shown in the moon photo, then would have agreed with your conclusion.

[BlisterHiker]

@123coining123

I can't be everywhere I want at any time I want, and I did that demonstration on rather flat surface, while Jack Schmitt took the picture 20744 standing at the edge of a small crater. Yes, the sun was lower when the astronauts were on the Moon, but that elongated shadow is mostly due to the surface angle. If you notice in the picture 20744, shadow of his legs is long, but his upper body's shadow is quite short because it's cast on the opposing slope of the crater.

>

[BlisterHiker]

@123coining123 > cont

I demonstrated what happens when light source is lower and the surface is shaped like a small crater in my 3D model at 0:45. Shadow is as long as in 20744. At 1:45 I show briefly how the shape of the object can bring the shadow closer to what we see in 20744.

I was thinking about modeling the object precisely, but I know I would be accused of cheating just like I was already accused of cheating my demonstration on a beach.

This video already demonstrates the principle.

[BlisterHiker]

@123coining123 >

When some day I'm at the right place and the right time when sun is lower, I will document another demonstration.

Will it convince hardcore hoax believers? I doubt it.

[LunarTuner]

BH, you're one of the best communicators I know on the Apollo topic. I know English isn't your native language and you're not a trained vocal master, but your mastery of the concept, the vocabulary and the manner of bringing it to the viewer is absolutely wonderful! I think that's evident by the utter void of hoax theorist responses here. If they have any inkling of rational faculties, they have nothing to say here. Well done. Seriously, well done!

[BlisterHiker]

@LunarTuner

Thanks for warm words. My English varies too depending on how much time I spend using my native language in between. I'm sure you've noticed those subtleties and changes. Anyway, I'm doing my best to keep the message straight and easy.

Quality of your voice is top notch. If some day I do the follow-up to Moon hoax commercials, I will let myself contact you. I hope you don't mind reading a few lines for me, but that will be no sooner than next year :-]

[Astrobrant2]

Wow! How long did it take you to find that picture at 6:55? That was a PERFECT example. Of course, Jarrah and, (I suspect), some other hoax nuts think the Mars missions were faked, too.

As I said in one of my videos, their need to call superior people liars and inflate their own egos is as important to them as air is to the rest of us.

[krisdevalle]

@NASAvsPETE Blister's video has live footage. I cannot fucking wait until you try the same thing. It is going to be so funny.

Here's what is going to happen. You are going to try to replicate the experiment. You will see that he is right. You will then use still images and photoshop them.

What is not going to change is that you are a moron. The most suprising thing that will happen is that you will accept that he is right. Obviously we're not holding our breath for that one.

[PETE4REALITY]

a perfect debunk, hats off !

[PETE4REALITY]

@krisdevalle yes he is a moron isnt he?, what a dick ! lol

[WackyAmoebatrons]

Suggestion for another live movie: add lines from points on objects to their shadow on the surface (if they are easy to identify, like corners of the wood thingies). We all know that those lines must look radial, with a common center--the camera lens. Add those lines for each frame while walking around the "set". There should be a loud "aaaah!". Do the same for some rover ride movie. Another "aaaahhh!".

[ApolloWasReal]

@hauserkaspar Everything they did during that EVA was carefully planned in advance; it's all in the published flight plan. As BH said, Aldrin's picture of his bootprint was part of a formal experiment in soil mechanics. So was the sequence when he runs around for the camera. No one had ever walked on the moon before, and NASA was anxious to know how easy or difficult it actually was and how much time future astronauts would need to acclimate themselves before doing "real" work.

[ApolloWasReal]

@BlisterHiker Yes, I think that's exactly it. Most people who see a big achievement like Apollo (or MER) admire it and the people who did it. Some are motivated to learn more and a few are inspired to participate in similar projects in the future.

Hoax believers, on the other hand, seem personally threatened by such achievements and feel compelled to tear them down. I'd sure like to know why.

[ApolloWasReal]

@GoneToPlaid I just computed that a digital camera with an APS-C sensor would need a 25.6mm lens to have the same FOV as the 60mm Biogon. But the Hasselblad shot 1:1 frames while APS-C and 35mm are 3:2. You are probably right that we should crop our digital photos to 1:1; this means an even shorter lens. So if the effective sensor size is 16.7mm square, the lens should also be 16.7mm. That's as wide as my usual lens goes (17-85mm).

Caveat: "APS-C" sensor sizes do vary.

[ApolloWasReal]

@GoneToPlaid Only very high end digital cameras have sensors equal in size to a 35mm film frame (36x24 mm). Most have much smaller sensors roughly the size of an APS-C frame (25.1 x 16.7 mm) that need a proportionately shorter lens to give the same field of view. To get the same field of view as the 60mm Biogon on a 60x60mm frame (84.9 mm diagonal) on APS-C you need a 25.6 mm lens. Also, the Hasselblads had square frames, making them somewhat incomparable to today's 4:3 or 16:9 cameras.