Moon landings---a partial 'hoax'?

[nomo]

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/explo ... index.html

The How and Why of Returning to the Moon

NASA has unveiled the initial elements of the Global Exploration Strategy and a proposed U.S. lunar architecture, two critical tools for achieving the nation's vision of returning humans to the moon.

The Global Exploration Strategy focuses on two overarching issues: Why we are returning to the moon and what we plan to do when we get there. The strategy includes a comprehensive set of the reasons for embarking upon human and robotic exploration of the moon. NASA's proposed lunar architecture focuses on a third issue: How humans might accomplish the mission of exploring the moon.

Official NASA Trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2fhVnTu ... h%2Enet%2F

[yesferatu]

[/i]

In this example [see photo] the astronaut on the right is standing on a small rise. The sloping ground has caused his shadow to elongate and appear at a different angle than the shadow of the astronaut on the left. Also note, if two spotlights produced the shadows then each astronaut would have two shadows.

No. The shadow would go where it was cast, it would not follow topography. The shadow would cast in the same direction as the other shadow, given one light source. The shadow would have lain at the top of the ridge on which the astronaut was standing, maybe even laying slightly to the other side of the slope. Or conversely, the other shadow would go in the same direction as the hadow that goes down the slope. The slope and it's physical topography has nothing to do with with the shadow.
Indeed, if it is the slope, then the shadow could just as easily have lain on the other side of the slope? Since he is at the crest of the slope, how come his shadow chose that side of the slope instead of choosing the other side of the slope? This is not being a smart aleck....I want to know why it would "choose" that side of the slope? If it was cast on the slope, it would simply elongate in the same direction as other nearby comparative shadows created by a distant sun
They do not hinge on this weird B.S. theory about what can only be interpreted as some kind of downward pull of gravity of the slope on the shadow! This has nothing to do with theories of perspective...topography can only shorten or elongate a shadow depending on rise or slope...it will never change its direction. Direction can only be changed by the distance of the light source upon objects. This shadow should elongate in the direction that the other shadow took - given that the light source is the distant sun and and not
an artificial lighting source. I could never re-create that divergence even were I to find similar topgraphy and positioned two people in the same positions with a sun being in the general sky-angle. The person on the slope would have a shadow cast elongating along the downward crest at the spine of that crest, since the spine and the other shadow are running roughly in the same direction. I could only re-create it with a very near light source....not the distant sun, of which two miniscule object (astronauts) in relation to it can only do that which is physically possible.
This is not hinging on theory. Or weak examples of perspective that are offered.

[Occult Means Hidden]

Jeff,

You were saying, in another thread that you believed personal testimony to be more convincing in the 9/11 and UFO-type scene than physical evidence. Could the same be said in regards toward testimony officially and unofficially given, like Trifecta's experience?

Roth,

Tri was saying, I believe, that the CEO/engineer was astounded that the buggy moved without its needed gear adjustment.

[rothbardian]

OMH--

I get it now (about Trifecta's little story). Wow. OK...well, just trying to be objective...that doesn't bode well for the non-'moon hoax' dogmatists. I have no vested interest either way. I get the distinct impression such is not the case for some folks here. They've staked a claim. Just my impression.

Orz--

You make this statement and claim this is the view coming from my side of the discussion?-- "They are evil, therefore the worst and most radical conclusions as to their actions holds true"

That's nothing but a straw man. Who said that? Who are you arguing with?

It's an exaggerated 'caricaturing' to say that folks like me see evil people and then proceed to mindlessly apply some sort of 'sawed off' analysis. I do realize I am not living my life out inside the pages of a comic book, you'll be happy to know.

On the other hand, I have heard dozens of my friends dismiss "9/11 was an inside job" strictly on their notion that American leaders simply could not be that evil. It is something that won't fit in their minds. I'm not saying that's you but...

You're in a dubious position trying to claim that some people (like me?) need to believe there may be gigantic, across-the-board fraud/deception/evil going on behind the scenes with NASA (et al)...because we are just automatically and strongly drawn to believe such things ("They are evil...the worst...") as you seem to suggest.

What I want to believe is that America is like the Norman Rockwell paintings. What I want to believe is that my children will have a future in this world. But it doesn't look good, and a good percentage of people I know are sticking their head in the sand.

So...I would dare to say you're in denial IF you don't think the general trend is the other way around. People (in general) want to be 'sheeple'. They want to believe the official versions of everything...the JFK lone gunman...governments can't create earthquakes...American soldiers aren't posing as Iraqi terrorists in Iraq...Pearl Harbor was a surprise...etc.

Nomo--

I agree with your point. It would be very interesting to get on with a discussion of these deeper issues and, for example, to pursue the questions raised by the various NASA whistle blowers who are testifying of mind boggling things. That's why I introduced those two or three testimonies (Ms. Hare, Sergeant Wolfe, and that NASA poster). Also, the link I provided which attempts to detail possible evidence for a 'presidential' encounter with ETs, back in the 50's. All startling stuff.

I would however like any clarification anyone might be able to provide for the moon photo I posted showing two utterly intersecting (not converging) shadows...and the trackless moon rovers...and the shadowless American flag.

[jingofever]

[/i]

In this example [see photo] the astronaut on the right is standing on a small rise. The sloping ground has caused his shadow to elongate and appear at a different angle than the shadow of the astronaut on the left. Also note, if two spotlights produced the shadows then each astronaut would have two shadows.

No. The shadow would go where it was cast, it would not follow topography. The shadow would cast in the same direction as the other shadow, given one light source. The shadow would have lain at the top of the ridge on which the astronaut was standing, maybe even laying slightly to the other side of the slope. Or conversely, the other shadow would go in the same direction as the hadow that goes down the slope. The slope and it's physical topography has nothing to do with with the shadow.
Indeed, if it is the slope, then the shadow could just as easily have lain on the other side of the slope? Since he is at the crest of the slope, how come his shadow chose that side of the slope instead of choosing the other side of the slope? This is not being a smart aleck....I want to know why it would "choose" that side of the slope? If it was cast on the slope, it would simply elongate in the same direction as other nearby comparative shadows created by a distant sun
They do not hinge on this weird B.S. theory about what can only be interpreted as some kind of downward pull of gravity of the slope on the shadow! This has nothing to do with theories of perspective...topography can only shorten or elongate a shadow depending on rise or slope...it will never change its direction. Direction can only be changed by the distance of the light source upon objects. This shadow should elongate in the direction that the other shadow took - given that the light source is the distant sun and and not
an artificial lighting source. I could never re-create that divergence even were I to find similar topgraphy and positioned two people in the same positions with a sun being in the general sky-angle. The person on the slope would have a shadow cast elongating along the downward crest at the spine of that crest, since the spine and the other shadow are running roughly in the same direction. I could only re-create it with a very near light source....not the distant sun, of which two miniscule object (astronauts) in relation to it can only do that which is physically possible.
This is not hinging on theory. Or weak examples of perspective that are offered.

The claim is that the shadows appear to be at different angles, not that they are at different angles. The person explicitly states that viewed from above the shadows will be parallel. And you have expanded your accusations haven't you? NASA didn't just alter the photos, now they altered the videos too, frame by frame. I'm tossing you another website to take a swing at, here.

Your theory is that NASA changed the shadows on the images and videos so that they point in the wrong directions? Any suggestions as to why they would do this?

[erosoplier]

Well I think I'm officially over my first bout of moon hoax fever.

I don't have a problem with the shadows in the moon photos that I've seen, after hearing some explanations for them. Some combination of perspective, slope, and lens distortion could account for what I've seen so far (but what photo with converging shadows are you referring to Roth?). It's the lighting I don't like in the Apollo 11 shots - bright spots, and dark peripheries. This photo ("Aldrin erects solar wind experiment") is a good example of that (but there are many better examples of it*). Why isn't the surface lit evenly all the way to the horizon?

And the soft churned-up-by-boots surface, but with no rocket crater underneith the LM - that bothers me also. Here's a photo of the lunar surface as the Apollo 14 LM lifts off. >3000lbs of thrust, and I can't say that I can see a speck of dirt in motion, let alone a violent scouring away of anything not firmly stuck to the surface. (I've just realised my doubts here are based on knowing first-hand what a blast of compressed air actually does to hard-packed earth. Someone tell me where I've got it all wrong...).


What set me off on this was the strange behaviour of the astronauts on Bart Sibrel's "Astronauts Gone Wild." Aldrin's interaction with Sibrel (starting at bit over 10 minutes in, here (send payment for original Sibrel dvd as conscience demands)) reminds me very much of Larry Silverstein's tantalisingly ambiguous comments about the "pulling" of something-or-other on 9/11. Watch the Aldrin segment. I decided to take a transcript of it because I was initially convinced that his statements were incriminating, but listening to it over and over it became obvious that his statements were ultimately inconclusive - they were just to the incriminating side of ambiguous, as were Silverstein's.

Now I'm starting to wonder if this, to be blunt, is a CIA/NASA/Sibrel/Ex-Astronauts collaboration in order to generate a whole new batch of moon hoaxers. Because each ex-astronaut ditched their craft in turn in the Sibrel video. And astronauts and ex-astronauts don't ditch their craft as a rule, not without a ruddy good fight. We all know that much.

*The only explanation I've heard for it is that the sunlight is reflected directly back towards the sun because of the slightly glassy nature of lunar dirt, and that this creates "hot-spots" of brighter light. But it doesn't take long to find examples where this idea doesn't work. See these:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-37-5454.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5855.jpg
And others, from here

[nomo]

Tri was saying, I believe, that the CEO/engineer was astounded that the buggy moved without its needed gear adjustment.

Uh no. I think what Tri was saying that there was a guy he met who actually worked on the moon buggy. And that there was an astronaut, on the moon, who got the thing to work after he remembered to shift the gears.

[Jeff]

Now I'm starting to wonder if this, to be blunt, is a CIA/NASA/Sibrel/Ex-Astronauts collaboration in order to generate a whole new batch of moon hoaxers. Because each ex-astronaut ditched their craft in turn in the Sibrel video. And astronauts and ex-astronauts don't ditch their craft as a rule, not without a ruddy good fight. We all know that much.

That's an interesting thought, especially given the participation of Aldrin, Kissinger, Rumsfeld et al in the mockumentary Dark Side of the Moon, which has fooled many. For instance, 9/11 water-muddier Eric Hufschmid claims it reveals the truth. ("when a criminal tries to cover up his crime, he runs the risk of releasing more information about himself. The Dark Side Of The Moon allows us to have a better understanding of who faked the moon landing.... Why would any of those people agree to be part of a silly "mockumentary"? This especially applies to Donald Rumsfeld, who has a full-time job. I think they are all worried that the Apollo moon hoax will be exposed, and that each of them is somehow involved in the crime.")

[Dreams End]

Sibrel is from Nashville...he did some acting around here if I remember, 20 years or so ago. His moon mission is a religious one and I think he's a loon. If you were stalked by a guy chasing you with a bible, you might react the same way.

We already had a moon hoax thread from some time back. Far more detailed than this one, actually. I'm not going into all that again, though I will say that I managed to find several pics of shots from the moon that did feature stars. They are faint, which you would expect if you know how photography works when taking pics of bright areas....fainter light won't show up. But the "where are the stars" argument kinda ended with those pics.

I don't have time to search for the old thread. McGowan is actually a moon hoax believer...but he's not written much about space that I've bought, despite liking pretty much everything else he writes.

By the way...two more thoughts. One, I don't believe the moon hoax idea but that doesn't mean for me or nomo or Jeff or whoever, that we don't believe our rulers aren't capable of such things. There were so many employees who were, I suppose, "pretending" to be involved in the moon landing. This goes beyond keeping a "manhattan project" type secret and suggests these thousands of employees were all actively in on a hoax.

Secondly, I don't get those of you who keep coming around and suggesting that Jeff has some agenda to hide the truth. There are lots of websites and discussion boards out there...so, though Jeff won't say it, I will. If you think Jeff is actively trying to provide misinformation, as some on this thread have implied, then why don't you fuck off and go find another sandbox to play in. And by the way, the stupidest comment on this thread aren't about the moon but about suggestions that Jeff is somehow censoring people's ideas or...what was the phrase..."punishing" people for their ideas or whatever. Are your posts here? Yes, they are. This means you haven't been censored. Did the IRS call you? Homeland security? No...this means you haven't received any repercussions for disagreeing with Jeff.

Grow up.

[professorpan]

Grow up.

I'll second that request. Or if you can't grow up, at least act like you're grown up. If I ran a discussion board, I'd kick out anyone who gave me a hard time, and I'd have zero qualms about doing so.

It's a testament to Jeff's civility that he puts up with the attacks on his integrity. Get it through your thick skulls, people -- you have no "right" to post here, or to criticize the guy who operates and pays for this board. You're a guest, plain and simple.

What some of you do is equivalent to walking into someone's house and crapping in the punchbowl. Just because it's an Internet discussion forum doesn't negate the need for civility and respect.

[nomo]

http://www.marilyncarolyn.com/


Still photos taken straight off the television screen of one of the early moon landings...



















Now, if this was a CD debate, screenshots would be PROOF!

[Jeff]

Now that you mention it, that final shot - thermite?

[Trifecta]

Those shots make it clear to me there is definately a conspiracy here. They look, either that they have been touched up, for colour transmition? or just plane ole photoshop? They look like a cheap version of Thunderbirds...just need to see the strings, everything is just a bit too perfect.

Bob, the guy I met, one viewing the operation in a monitor, he was instructing only his verbal command to a screen. The asronaught worked it out himself.

Hope that clears that up. Still I think I will just remain ag(fucking)nostic on this one, too many other things are going on right under our eyes.

Jeff has no agenda, he loves to play devils advocate, we all need that.

[rothbardian]

So anyway....

If anybody has some thoughts about this 'intersecting shadows' photo, let me know. Maybe there's a good explanation.



Also...the 'trackless rover' photos...and the shadowless American flag photo. Any quick thoughts?

You two guys (DE, Pan)...I don't know how to help you. I don't know what you're talking about. Pan is almost always offended about something anyway so...what to do? And DE...I remember you being 'offended' saying that I had "disrespected" the dead and dying at VA Tech simply because of my arguments for 'self-defense rights'.

You leave no room for debate. All disagreement is 'disrespectful'. Good luck with that.

I'd also say it is very legitimate to be challenged on this whole "Pleasantville" thing. Like I said to Orz earlier-- I have heard dozens of my friends dismiss "9/11 was an inside job" strictly on their notion that American leaders simply could not be that evil. It is something that won't fit in their minds. In other words, it can become a real issue...that we refuse to believe certain things, simply because we don't want to believe them.

With the kind of topics we cover here, that aspect has to stay on the table at all times (IMO). And to say that some people should be exempt from that questioning and are to be viewed as having 100% intellectual and philosophical integrity at all times...and would never falter or stumble when faced with 'facts' that challenge the status quo of their worldview...is to create a cult of personality. I am not a member of the Jeff Cult. Or the Nomo cult...Orz cult etc.

To exempt people the way you are doing...is counterproductive. It effectively censors debate and disagreement. I have been challenged a hundred times here at RI...about having a "need" to believe what I do...about having (in effect) ulterior motives for why I hold certain views. Unlike you, I don't take gigantic offense. As long as the 'incredulous' person I'm dealing with, wants to continue the discussion I will seek to show that I have 'reasoning' backing up my views, not ulterior motives (of fear, insecurity, or whatever.)

[Jeff]

Jeff has no agenda

I don't know about that. But I swear I don't have a hidden agenda.

I just want to create a space for the safe and intelligent discussion of topics that have a hard time finding either.

To those who might say Wait a sec - you can entertain the notion of fairies, but a Moon Hoax is absurd? I would answer, first of all, good point. But then I'd add, I believe that there are things we can know with reasonable certainty, and other things about which we have little certainty at all. But human experience encompasses both, and it should be possible to discuss both with intelligence and grace.