Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

originally posted by: choos

you claimed that the papers refer to aluminium only, no mention whatsoever about aluminium alloy. you even admitted that pure aluminium and aluminium alloy are completely different..

you found out months later that Apollo was using an aluminium alloy.. therefore your argument is null and void.


Aluminium Alloy.. remember it is your belief that aluminium and aluminium alloy are completely different.


again.. according to your argument, aluminium makes particle radiation worse than it was before..

how much worse?? you cant say because you dont know.
so what is the original?? you cant say because you dont know.
what about aluminium alloy which is what they used? its a completely different metal apparently..

YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT.. even your argument viewed from your own perspective is excessively flawed.

The papers stated those points, get it??

Aluminum was tested.

What you argue is that aluminum alloys were used in Apollo, so not relevant.


Why would they never mention it?


Hey, it's only about 'pure' aluminum, folks!!

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: turbonium1

You do realise that the papers are talking about future missions into deep space? Such as missions to Mars, which will mean being in space for months at a time? Different missions require different levels of protection. Freediving to 100ft does not require the same level of equipment as going to the bottom of the Marianas Trench.

A step is made, but nobody speaks of it, so move along!?!?

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

you claimed that the papers refer to aluminium only, no mention whatsoever about aluminium alloy. you even admitted that pure aluminium and aluminium alloy are completely different..

you found out months later that Apollo was using an aluminium alloy.. therefore your argument is null and void.


Aluminium Alloy.. remember it is your belief that aluminium and aluminium alloy are completely different.


again.. according to your argument, aluminium makes particle radiation worse than it was before..

how much worse?? you cant say because you dont know.
so what is the original?? you cant say because you dont know.
what about aluminium alloy which is what they used? its a completely different metal apparently..

YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT.. even your argument viewed from your own perspective is excessively flawed.

The papers stated those points, get it??

Aluminum was tested.

What you argue is that aluminum alloys were used in Apollo, so not relevant.


Why would they never mention it?


Hey, it's only about 'pure' aluminum, folks!!

I think the "pure aluminum" versus "aluminum alloy" argument is a bit distracting and frankly not relevant.

The truth is that the Apollo spacecraft had no specific measures to shield against radiation because it didn't need it based on the short durations of tha Apollo missions. The dosages of radiation the astronauts would receive would still be within acceptable limits, and that because the radiation exposure time would be limited.

So are metals (such as aluminum) a poor choice of shielding against cosmic particle radiation? You bet.

Would use of that aluminum as the skin of a spacecraft result in a mission that would be impossible due to the radiation exposure?

No.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: MuonToGluon

Was I talking about some shifting of the Radiation Fields? No, I was not.

I was talking about the Radiation levels and type and the fact that multiple space probes prior to Apollo had mapped the VARB to know the positions and locations of them so they could pick the most optimal inclination to go around the inner and punch through part of the outer.

Them know decades later that the VARB was more Dynamic then it was back in the 60s does not support your argument at all, there are plenty of drugs and chemicals we used to use in the past that gave a hell of a lot of people cancers and diseases and killed many that we only found out about many years after using them.

Your argument and logic is flawed.

So because they did not know about the dynamic structure of the VARB in the 60s, that they could not of gone and done it because we found out that the VARB were more dynamic many years after Apollo...?

Everything changes in a moment, ignorance is no defence...

All the points show the problem, as a whole.

Oh push off you limited person!

I proved my words like how you asked me, you have proved none of yours.

Your argument is that the VARBs SHIFT like a rotating basket ball every second of every day flipping around and dancing around the earth while pulsating and pumping out lethal rays that will knock a person dead in seconds...IT IS IN NO WAY LIKE THAT AT ALL YOU LIAR.

They do not do anything like that at all, I can even prove that! See those Satellites and Science packages up there? If the VARBs did what you claim they did they would not function after moments of reaching space.

You are a very very limited person.

originally posted by: turbonium1

The papers stated those points, get it??

Aluminum was tested.

What you argue is that aluminum alloys were used in Apollo, so not relevant.

Why would they never mention it?

Hey, it's only about 'pure' aluminum, folks!!

it is your argument.. do you not understand why your argument is flawed??

they stated they used aluminium alloy with the contruction of the Apollo spacecraft, they only stated aluminium in your reports, alloy is not mentioned. in your mind these two are completely different with different properties with regards to particle radiation, again this is how you think it works.

so in your mind, those reports mean nothing for the Apollo lunar missions.. your point is mute from your perspective. just get over it.

The light source of unknown origin was pretty much a game changer for me. I know many people have argued that the light could have been reflected and the theory was tested and supposedly proven. Thats all well and good but does nothing to determine whether that is what actually happened or not. The only thing proven is that it is possible under very precise conditions that light could have been reflected. In no way was it proven to have actually happened resulting in the photographs with the unknown light source. Possible is not proof.

If we have to accept the validity of the argument for reflection as proof there was no unknown light source we have created a logic trap. If simply having a viable alternative disproves any theory then no one can ever believe or prove anything. That would mean the only theory that could ever be accepted is one that has no alternate choice. Nothing is that absolute.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

If there were two light sources lighting up the astronauts from different directions, then why is there only one shadow?

The idea that the regolith provided some ambient reflection is not that crazy, and the conditions don't need to be that precise. I mean, obviously the dust on the surface reflects light upward, because we can see the moon here on Earth...

...and in fact a full moon can reflect enough light to light up the ground here on Earth 238,000 miles away; if that can happen, I don't think it is too crazy to believe it could provide an ambient glow to objects (astronauts, etc.) right above its surface.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

The only problem is the "light source of unknown origin" is a complete straw man created by the hoax frauds. One light source = one shadow, two light sources = two shadows etc etc. So yes, your choices are, either reflected light that all the evidence points to and is something that is observed by billions of people on this planet every day as a property of light . . . or that NASA has some magical spotlight they used on their moon set that violates all known laws of physics and can light objects without casting a shadow.
The easiest way to observe is to find a tall building and early in the morning or late in the evening go stand on the shadow side. You'll notice that many objects that aren't in direct sunlight are still fairly easily visible due to reflected light, especially if they're a reflective colour like the bright white space suits.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

In some images there were two shadows. That is what started the whole idea of the unknown light source.

a reply to: captainpudding

The unknown light source does not fit the criteria of a straw man argument in any way.

Again, yes - it is possible for light to have been reflected. That in itself does not prove that the extra shadow was from reflected light. It only means it is possible. It is also possible that there was a second light source.

Like I said earlier, if we can only accept a theory which has no alternative as fact then we can accept few if any theories about anything. There is almost always an alternative. You have decided that reflected light it more plausible than an unknown light source. That does not mean there was not a second light source. It means you made up your mind and nothing more. I am keeping an open mind and allowing the possibility, in the absence of proof, that things are not always as they seem.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

In some images there were two shadows. That is what started the whole idea of the unknown light source.

Please provide an example of one object having two separate shadows in an Apollo image, because I don't think I've ever seen one.


I have seen Apollo Moon pictures with non-parallel shadows, and people pushing the erroneous argument that all shadows in every picture should be parallel, thus if shadows are NOT parallel, then they are from two different light sources.

However, Like I said, that is a false argument. There are many reasons for non-parallel shadows, such as uneven terrain and the fact that pictures (especially wider-angle pictures) can show otherwise parallel shadows to appear non-parallel due to perspective.

Here is an Earth example of perspective and a relatively wide angle shot making parallel shadows appear to be non-parallel:


Other than that, I don't recall ever seeing an Apollo image that shows one object having two shadows.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

please provide the NASA image number for the photograph you believe best shows " multiple shadows "

this number should follow the format :

AS[number] [number] [number]

as shown source

wherein AS17 145 22162

denotes that that image is from :

appollo 17 mission

a still from film magazine 145

and is image 22162 [ a sequential serial number ]

i shall wait

PS - please have the decency to use an actual NASA or other bona fide source - dont just link an unidentified image on a conspiracists site that has no ID or context

thanks

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
That in itself does not prove that the extra shadow was from reflected light. It only means it is possible. It is also possible that there was a second light source.

The only problem is there doesn't exist a single picture taken on any apollo mission that shows an extra shadow, that's the straw man I was talking about. It is a lie pushed by seasoned con artists because they know the truth doesn't support them.

This image shows a light source on the shadow side of the lander reflecting off the right heel. There should be no light source on that side in that position.

as11-40-5866

This image shows shadows from two different directions out of camera view.

as14-145-22172

This image shows shadows from two different directions similar to the one shown above.

as14-68-9486

a reply to: Vroomfondel

ok - you couldnt manage to give the actuall image numbers for any of the pics you posted

BUT you further failed to give any evidence of this fantasy " second light "

BRAVO` - you failed us - but you also failed yourself

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Vroomfondel

ok - you couldnt manage to give the actuall image numbers for any of the pics you posted

BUT you further failed to give any evidence of this fantasy " second light "

BRAVO` - you failed us - but you also failed yourself

Well, you got the ignorant part right... as for the ape, that remains to be seen.

Sorry, I forgot to add the AS numbers. They are there now. As for evidence of a second light, what do you think the pics are? Or did you actually expect me to have an actual picture of the actual light source? Even you couldn't be that...

a reply to: captainpudding

You are right, there isn't a single picture. There are many.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

It's all about the effect of perspective in photographic images. Let's look at this image you posted first...

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
This image shows shadows from two different directions similar to the one shown above.

as14-68-9486

This image is related to the perspective issue I was talking about in a post above.

As I explained in that post above, shadows may not look parallel to each other in certain images due to perspective, as in the image below with the sun generally ahead of the photographer:




Conversely, the a similar but opposite photographic effect happens when the sun is generally behind the photographer, as in this one:




That takes us to this one that you posted:

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
This image shows shadows from two different directions out of camera view.

as14-145-22172

First of all, You have the wrong image name/mission. This image is from Apollo 17, not Apollo 14 (image AS17-145-22172, rather than AS14). In this image, the Sun is generally behind the photographer, as told by the shadows on the surface in the middle of the image.



So here is an image of desert rocks here on Earth where the Sun was similarly behind the back of the photographer:



Let's now look at the image (AS17-145-22170) taken two prior to the image you posted. It includes some of the exact same rocks in your image, but was taken while the photographer had his body turned a bit more to his left (the these images are part of a 360-degree panorama where the astronaut, Gene Cernan, was taking a series of images as he rotated around 360 degrees).

Therefore In that AS17-145-22170 image (below, with arrows I added), the Sun is no longer directly behind the astronaut, but rather to his left -- and the shadows are cutting across the frame, so the shadows are not in perspective (they are not coming toward the camera nor are they receding from the camera). However as you can see from the rock shadows that are common to both the image you linked and this image I linked (due to some of the rocks being the same rocks in both images), the shadows are the same...

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

If you are using perspective as your device to debunk the photos you must know that perspective deviation is determined by proximity to the light source. In the photo of the trees you used as an example of perspective you see that the variation between shadows is very minimal because the light source is so far away. Same for the photo of the rocks, very little in terms of variation of angle. In the photo I showed the variation between shadows is nearly 90 degrees. There is no perspective variant that can account for that, only a nearby directional light source, much closer to the subject than the sun. In the third photo you compare it to a) a photo taken on earth with atmosphere that bends light, and b) a photo that was taken in panorama mode which by its nature curves the entire photo around a central point. And again, the variation between shadows is minimal compared to the image I showed where the shadows are in direct opposition to each other coming from both the right and the left - which is strange if the light is behind the photographer. And you did not mention the first photo at all...no explanation for that one?

Hardly a persuasive argument.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

If you are using perspective as your device to debunk the photos you must know that perspective deviation is determined by proximity to the light source. In the photo of the trees you used as an example of perspective you see that the variation between shadows is very minimal because the light source is so far away. Same for the photo of the rocks, very little in terms of variation of angle. In the photo I showed the variation between shadows is nearly 90 degrees...

I'm not sure I get what you mean. In the example images I provided of the tress, the breach, and the desert rocks, there was in fact a near 90 degree difference in the shadows shown.

Some of the shadows on the right and left sides of the desert rock image are even greater than 90 degrees, and are almost pointing at each other. This effect is due to the relatively wide angle images created by some camera lenses, such as the wide angle lenses used by the Apollo Hasselblads.

Can you please point out which shadows in the images you l posted are 90 degrees? I'm not saying none are, but I want to see which specific shadows you are talking about so we can be specific when we discuss them. The image you have listed as "AS14-145-22172" has a bunch of lines, but I don't really see how they relate to the shadows in that image.

Thanks.