So I've always been very much on the fence as to whether or not the Apollo 11 landing, as viewed by the public, was an elaborate hoax. There's no doubt in my mind that we have since been to the moon. And part of me even believes that we did land on the moon when we said we did, but that the live broadcast of the moon landing was faked, simply as a safety protocol in the event that what the astronauts saw on the actual lunar surface was too shocking to share with the general public.

That being said, there is one photograph that I have yet to wrap my brain around. Those debunkers out there who trust in the validity of the publicly distributed Apollo 11 photos and videos, here is your chance to prove it to a skeptic.



How is it that the sun, which creates equal, parallel rays of light given its size and distance from the Earth and Moon, can cast two greatly different sized shadows?

Normally, to get two different size shadows from objects of the same size, it requires the source light to hit each subject at a different angle. For example, imagine that, here on Earth, two people stand 10 feet apart at the same time of day. Assuming they are the same height, their shadows will be equal in length. If you took the same two people, put them in a dark room, and shined a spotlight on them, the two people would have different size shadows because the source light hits each subject at a different angle. Here is an image to illustrate my point:



Now what's strange about this is that the subject closer to the source light should have a shorter shadow than the subject that is further away (as we see in the above image). The opposite effect is happening in the Apollo photo. So what gives? It seems like there are different angles of light - implying an artificial, non-solar source - but they are defying the normal laws of physics.

Is there a logical explanation that I'm missing?

Vary nice. This, to me, is further proof that something is up. I hope someone with "Mad Skillz" can come in here and verify the oddness of this.

No ,I don't think there is.

But I'd like to get Neil Armstrong in a room and ask him about a 1000 questions.

Every time this subjet comes up, it is almost as a bigger dilema than 9/11.

It's just one of those hot potato' that won't go away.

I like these types of threads, because it has conspiracy written all over it.

Mr NASA someday will tell us the TRUTH..........Hmmmmmm

It appears both astronauts are not standing perpendicular to the ground like the lighters. This would explain the shadow length differnece.

The hill would stop the shadows, making the one closer seem to have a shorter shadow.
You can see by the light on the hill, the existance of the hill...otherwise its a forgivable misperception.

I too, believe we have gone to the moon. But I too, think that it was entirely too big of a gamble to broadcast it live! No way our government would have done this. We were in a space race with the USSR, and we were touting advanced technologies, and there was far too much to lose if something went wrong. We don't even broadcast sporting events or Presidential speeches without several seconds of delay in case we need to cut or bleep something.

The shadows are very interesting. As for the "different angles" the one shadow is more than double the length, so the one astronaut would need to be almost lying down compared to the other. There is also an odd shadow on one of their shoulders that does not seem to fit the single light source.

As devil's advocate, maybe there was a second light source on the landing module and aimed at the astronauts? I would assume they brought some artificial lighting in case they needed it?

Interesting but any decent photographer knows to use additional lighting and there are pictures of the lighting equipment used on the Appollo mission on the internet.

On the subject of lighting, one should point out that although multiple light sources could be a reason for non-parallel shadows, they also would produce more than one shadow for an object exposed to them.

I emailed Bart Sibrel about this once and got no answer.

I'm not against raising questions about what NASA does, but as far as I know Sibrel hasn't addressed the issue of multiple shadows (the lack of them) in scenes that he suggests or asserts were lit by multiple light sources.