Do you believe Apollo 11 was a hoax?

Quote from: rvlvr on January 11, 2018, 09:41:17 AM

Okay, whether or not USA went to moon will soon be rendered moot as China is to send a lander on the moon this year.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/dec/31/china-mission-to-far-side-of-the-moon-space-discovery

Or will it, too, be just shot in a studio and/or CGI? Is China in on the same conspiracy as the United States?

It will simply reinforce their  narcissistic delusion that they are the smartest people on Earth and thus can see through the conspiracy.   Their brains are wired differently than a normal person's brain.

But TODAY it could be possible to fake it, not so with Apollo.
The first "fake moon landing" story I can recall came from the YouTube of the day, the National Enquirer.  The claim was that the astronauts never went to the moon but remained in Earth's orbit while NASA broadcasted prerecorded studio footage.  Even the most delusional of the first generation nutjobs didn't claim space travel was fake, only the trip to the moon.
Neonutters like Dutchy didn't show up claiming space travel was fake until faking space travel became somewhat possible and groupthink sites like Facebook and youtube became popular.

These people have textbook symptoms of paranoia and delusion and really need professional help.
It would be pitiful if it wasn't  so funny.

Care to show me some professional work of a top photographer examening all available Apollo footage ?
At least David Percy has done it, to come to the conclusion it was faked in a studio.

I won't go in the direction of your emotionally loaded replies, but simply ask for some professional names of the film industry who confirm that all footage was shot on the moon.
And most names in the NASA debunking camp are enthusiastic amatures at best.

Quote from: NAZA on January 12, 2018, 12:19:34 PM

Quote from: rvlvr on January 11, 2018, 09:41:17 AM

Okay, whether or not USA went to moon will soon be rendered moot as China is to send a lander on the moon this year.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/dec/31/china-mission-to-far-side-of-the-moon-space-discovery

Or will it, too, be just shot in a studio and/or CGI? Is China in on the same conspiracy as the United States?

It will simply reinforce their  narcissistic delusion that they are the smartest people on Earth and thus can see through the conspiracy.   Their brains are wired differently than a normal person's brain.

But TODAY it could be possible to fake it, not so with Apollo.
The first "fake moon landing" story I can recall came from the YouTube of the day, the National Enquirer.  The claim was that the astronauts never went to the moon but remained in Earth's orbit while NASA broadcasted prerecorded studio footage.  Even the most delusional of the first generation nutjobs didn't claim space travel was fake, only the trip to the moon.
Neonutters like Dutchy didn't show up claiming space travel was fake until faking space travel became somewhat possible and groupthink sites like Facebook and youtube became popular.

These people have textbook symptoms of paranoia and delusion and really need professional help.
It would be pitiful if it wasn't  so funny.

Care to show me some professional work of a top photographer examening all available Apollo footage ?
At least David Percy has done it, to come to the conclusion it was faked in a studio.

I won't go in the direction of your emotionally loaded replies, but simply ask for some professional names of the film industry who confirm that all footage was shot on the moon.
And most names in the NASA debunking camp are enthousiastic amatures at best.

Here are some experts showing it was real
https://www.fastcompany.com/3035937/nvidia-takes-on-apollo-11-moon-landing-deniers-with-technology

"Bill Kaysing was a nutcase, Jarrah White an imbecile, Ralph Renee a grumpy idiot and more......."

I have to admit I have no idea who those people are.

Persons who have spend years and years examining the Apollo footage and official storyline.

https://www.fastcompany.com/3035937/nvidia-takes-on-apollo-11-moon-landing-deniers-with-technology

Fail, NVIDIA was caught faking it's own paramaters that garanteed the preferred outcome.

Cool! I did not know Nvidia has anything to do with Apollo. I have two friends working in Nvidia. Maybe they know more!

Multiple light sources should cause multiple shadows on each object.  This is never seen.  Shadow lengths and directions can be explained with perspective and terrain.

Quote from: NAZA on January 12, 2018, 12:19:34 PM

Quote from: rvlvr on January 11, 2018, 09:41:17 AM

Okay, whether or not USA went to moon will soon be rendered moot as China is to send a lander on the moon this year.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/dec/31/china-mission-to-far-side-of-the-moon-space-discovery

Or will it, too, be just shot in a studio and/or CGI? Is China in on the same conspiracy as the United States?

It will simply reinforce their  narcissistic delusion that they are the smartest people on Earth and thus can see through the conspiracy.   Their brains are wired differently than a normal person's brain.

But TODAY it could be possible to fake it, not so with Apollo.
The first "fake moon landing" story I can recall came from the YouTube of the day, the National Enquirer.  The claim was that the astronauts never went to the moon but remained in Earth's orbit while NASA broadcasted prerecorded studio footage.  Even the most delusional of the first generation nutjobs didn't claim space travel was fake, only the trip to the moon.
Neonutters like Dutchy didn't show up claiming space travel was fake until faking space travel became somewhat possible and groupthink sites like Facebook and youtube became popular.

These people have textbook symptoms of paranoia and delusion and really need professional help.
It would be pitiful if it wasn't  so funny.

Care to show me some professional work of a top photographer examening all available Apollo footage ?
At least David Percy has done it, to come to the conclusion it was faked in a studio.

I won't go in the direction of your emotionally loaded replies, but simply ask for some professional names of the film industry who confirm that all footage was shot on the moon.
And most names in the NASA debunking camp are enthousiastic amatures at best.

You do realize that there were over 5000 pictures taken from moon walks don't you?
And it doesn't matter anyway, you would simply disregard ANY professional ' s opinion if it was counter to your delusion.  See my post above.
The problem isnt evidence, it is your mental health.
You see Dutchy, I took your advice and had a lengthy conversation with a couple of mental health professionals over the holidays about conspiracy theorists. You in particular are the epotimi of a person suffering from mental illness.  Your neural    pathways have developed  abnormally,    but that is a subject for another thread.

Quote from: rvlvr on January 12, 2018, 12:24:46 PM

"Bill Kaysing was a nutcase, Jarrah White an imbecile, Ralph Renee a grumpy idiot and more......."

I have to admit I have no idea who those people are.

Persons who have spend years and years examining the Apollo footage and official storyline.

That is commendable, but hardly qualifies them as people one should believe.

You do realize that there were over 5000 pictures taken from moon walks don't you?
And it doesn't matter anyway, you would simply disregard ANY professional ' s opinion if it was counter to your delusion.  See my post above.
The problem isnt evidence, it is your mental health.
You see Dutchy, I took your advice and had a lengthy conversation with a couple of mental health professionals over the holidays about conspiracy theorists. You in particular are the epotimi of a person suffering from mental illness.  Your neural    pathways have developed  abnormally,    but that is a subject for another thread.

You are no expert on photography.........and not a mental health professional, because you need their insight to draw a water thin conclusion about a forum member you do not know in real life.

I have my emotions under control, something that seems very hard for you....and defies your other supposed insight about mental health.
Because this should be the only correct approach according to the professionals !

1 Pay attention to the emotions of the person:
Try to stay focused on consoling the person, offering support in ways that you can, or just listening in a nonjudgmental fashion

You forgot to do that

2 Discuss the way you see the delusion:
Sometimes it might be wise to say something like “I understand this is hard for you. I would feel the same way. I’m sorry I cannot understand this 100%, but I certainly get why you feel the way you do.” You are not trying to be correct. You are not trying to be right. You are trying to be understanding while also expressing how you see the situation.

you failed to do that

3 Express that you are concerned about the person:
You can say something like “it is obvious that you are stressed and overwhelmed. Have you thought about seeking a therapist, someone who can hear you out and provide unbiased support?”

you tried to shove it down my troat

4 Offer to pursue therapy together but be strategic:
 A good therapist will teach you how to respond, interact with, and cope with the person who is suffering from delusions or paranoia.

5 Ask the person why they believe as they do and be open-minded:
It is okay to ask the person why they believe as they do. You can also ask the person to explain when their beliefs began and why.

you failed to do that

6 Avoid getting frustrated and expressing that to the person:

Need i say more ?

7 Learn about Cognitive Distortions or Thinking Errors:
We all struggle with thinking errors. It’s inevitable. I encourage you to learn more about cognitive distortions and how they may influence your reactions to the sufferer.

Mirror ?

8 Do model engaging in reality testing

No need for testing...there is only your way

I think the far more logical explaination after reading what the mental health professionals have written is that your conversation with them was during an intensive session.
But i won't judge you for it, i am all ears when and what you want to discuss about it.....or simply use me as an outlet to get things of your chest....it's okay !

Multiple light sources should cause multiple shadows on each object.  This is never seen.  Shadow lengths and directions can be explained with perspective and terrain.

Fair enough !
But since the film and photography professionals i mentioned claim the opposite i truly wonder who your professionals apart from the Clavius enthusiastic amatures, Phill Plait, Kris de Valle, frenat, Astrobrant and the very long list of Apollo supporters are ?
Sure,....lots of amature opinions explaining away the multiple shadows , different light angles and hotspots on the Apollo footage.
Non of these persons went to the moon, no real photographic experts.........so what is your criterea to draw such absolute conclusions that fully dismisses the appearant use of multiple studio lightening and spots ?

I know Jay windley plays church organ in his spare time, but is he a professional photographer and astronaut who is entitled to comment on the moon circomstances and studio lightening ?
Or is it just a case of enthusiastic hearsay ?

Quote from: frenat on January 12, 2018, 12:48:40 PM

Multiple light sources should cause multiple shadows on each object.  This is never seen.  Shadow lengths and directions can be explained with perspective and terrain.

Fair enough !
But since the film and photography professionals i mentioned claim the opposite i truly wonder who your professionals apart from the Clavius enthusiastic amatures, Phill Plait, Kris de Valle, frenat, Astrobrant and the very long list of Apollo supporters are ?
Sure,....lots of amature opinions explaining away the multiple shadows , different light angles and hotspots on the Apollo footage.
Non of these persons went to the moon, no real photographic experts.........so what is your criterea to draw such absolute conclusions that fully dismisses the appearant use of multiple studio lightening and spots ?

I know Jay windley plays church organ in his spare time, but is he a professional photographer and astronaut who is entitled to comment on the moon circomstances and studio lightening ?
Or is it just a case of enthusiastic hearsay ?

You say fair enough as if you agree then claim again the "appearent (sic) use of multiple studio lightening (sic) and spots". 
First find an object that has multiple shadows on it and then you can claim there were multiple lights.

You say fair enough as if you agree then claim again the "appearent (sic) use of multiple studio lightening (sic) and spots". 
First find an object that has multiple shadows on it and then you can claim there were multiple lights.

David S Percy FRSA, ARPS is an award-winning film & TV producer and pioneer in the use of leading edge audiovisual technologies has spend a lot of time proving just that.
You know the site.....Aulis !


Are you going to tell me someone with equall credentials proved his observations about the Apollo footage are in error ?

Sure i know a lot of debunkers that claim they have,.....but apart from strolling the www to defend Apollo i have no idea what their credentials are ?
I disqualify Jay windley & co........absent outstanding professional carere in the film business like David Percy !!

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 12, 2018, 12:28:05 PM

https://www.fastcompany.com/3035937/nvidia-takes-on-apollo-11-moon-landing-deniers-with-technology

Fail, NVIDIA was caught faking it's own paramaters that garanteed the preferred outcome.
<< Failed video deleted >>

Fail, Jarrah White and you both ignore the commonly known fact that the reflectivity of much of the lunar surface is much higher back along the direction of the incident light.

If Jarrah White watched the Nvidia video carefully he might have learned this himself!
The moon's dust (regolith) acts much like a retro-reflector.

Retro-Reflectivity on the moon
Description
Retro-reflectivity refers to the reflection of light back towards the source from which it originates. Like many natural surfaces, the Moon's surface reflects considerably more light back in this direction than would, say, a diffuse reflector like a sheet of paper or a surface sprayed with "flat" paint. One of the many manifestations of this is that the Full Moon (which is always viewed with the Sun "at our backs") is considerably brighter than might be expected from its surface brightness at other phases. Another is the "hot spots" seen in many photos taken from lunar orbit, where a bright patch is seen in the direction opposite the Sun (where one would expect to see the shadow of the spacecraft, if it were large enough to be visible). Yet another is the halo of light seen around the shadow of the head of an astronaut photographing his own shadow at close range.

The term retro-reflectivity can also be applied (less correctly) to sun-glints from large shiny surfaces. In this case, a strong flash of brightness (more properly called a specular reflection) is seen when the light source, surface and observer are at exactly the right angles (not necessarily 180°) to allow the surface to act as a mirror, shining the light into the observer's eyes. Specular reflections from flat or aligned surfaces on the Moon have been offered as a possible cause for some of the so-called Transient Lunar Phenomena. Although sun glints of this kind have been seen on Mars, none of the reported transient lunar brightenings has ever repeated when viewed again at the same combination of angles.

Additional Information
Causes
The moon's surface is covered by a layer of dust, called the regolith. This dust layer is thought to be the primary cause of the Moon's retro-reflectivity (an optical effect sometimes called the Lunar Heiligenschein). The hiding of shadows from coarser structures, like surface rocks and boulders may also play a role.
The "classic" Heiligenschein on Terrestrial surfaces
The term Heiligenschein (German for the "saintly glow"), sometimes used to describe the glow of the lunar retro-reflectivity, especially when seen around the shadow of an astronaut's head, is derived from a similar-appearing phenomenon observable on many of the Earth's surfaces. In particular, it was originally used to describe the diffuse colorless glow seen around the shadow of one's own head cast on dew-covered grass. It is sometimes also called the "Sylvanshine" and/or "Heiligenschein Streak" for the vertical column that is sometimes seen above the shadow of the observer's head.

From: Retro-Reflection phenomena, Retro-Reflectivity on the moon

This information is available from numerous sources and Jarrah White is negligent in not checking this out before his debunking effect.

And your ever-so-smart Jarrah White simulates this reflective behaviour with a bitumen road with reflective properties nothing like regolith!.
Not only has he quite incorrectly used bitumen to simulate the lunar surface, but
1) he has blocked off any light from behind the toy LEM and
2) assumed a flat lunar surface.

No, Jarrah White's debunking attempt is a monstrous failure.

Quote from: frenat on January 12, 2018, 02:02:13 PM

You say fair enough as if you agree then claim again the "appearent (sic) use of multiple studio lightening (sic) and spots". 
First find an object that has multiple shadows on it and then you can claim there were multiple lights.

David S Percy FRSA, ARPS is an award-winning film & TV producer and pioneer in the use of leading edge audiovisual technologies has spend a lot of time proving just that.
You know the site.....Aulis !


Are you going to tell me someone with equall credentials proved his observations about the Apollo footage are in error ?

Sure i know a lot of debunkers that claim they have,.....but apart from strolling the www to defend Apollo i have no idea what their credentials are ?
I disqualify Jay windley & co........absent outstanding professional carere in the film business like David Percy !!

He has NEVER shown there are multiple lights.  You don't have to be an expert to know that multiple lights create multiple shadows on the same object.  You don't have to be an expert to see that the shadows can be recreated using just the sun.  You don't have to be an expert to see that many hoaxie claims are bogus.
You keep dropping Percy's name.  Why not present some actual claims of his that you think are noteworthy and we can examine them together?

Quote from: frenat on January 12, 2018, 12:48:40 PM

Multiple light sources should cause multiple shadows on each object.  This is never seen.  Shadow lengths and directions can be explained with perspective and terrain.

Fair enough !
But since the film and photography professionals i mentioned claim the opposite i truly wonder who your professionals apart from the Clavius enthusiastic amatures, Phill Plait, Kris de Valle, frenat, Astrobrant and the very long list of Apollo supporters are ?
Sure,....lots of amature opinions explaining away the multiple shadows , different light angles and hotspots on the Apollo footage.
Non of these persons went to the moon, no real photographic experts.........so what is your criterea to draw such absolute conclusions that fully dismisses the appearant use of multiple studio lightening and spots ?

I know Jay windley plays church organ in his spare time, but is he a professional photographer and astronaut who is entitled to comment on the moon circomstances and studio lightening ?
Or is it just a case of enthusiastic hearsay ?

Except when photography and computer experts closely examine the footage, they find it matches exactly what NASA claims.

Non of these persons went to the moon, no real photographic experts.........so what is your criterea to draw such absolute conclusions that fully dismisses the appearant use of multiple studio lightening and spots ?

For one thing, converging shadows are easy enough to reproduce on earth.



Since none of your experts went to the moon either, what is your criteria to draw such absolute conclusions that fully insist on the apparent use of multiple studio lights and/or spots?

BTW, some of the

Quote from: dutchy on January 12, 2018, 01:56:06 PM

Quote from: frenat on January 12, 2018, 12:48:40 PM

Multiple light sources should cause multiple shadows on each object.  This is never seen.  Shadow lengths and directions can be explained with perspective and terrain.

Fair enough !
But since the film and photography professionals i mentioned claim the opposite i truly wonder who your professionals apart from the Clavius enthusiastic amatures, Phill Plait, Kris de Valle, frenat, Astrobrant and the very long list of Apollo supporters are ?
Sure,....lots of amature opinions explaining away the multiple shadows , different light angles and hotspots on the Apollo footage.
Non of these persons went to the moon, no real photographic experts.........so what is your criterea to draw such absolute conclusions that fully dismisses the appearant use of multiple studio lightening and spots ?

I know Jay windley plays church organ in his spare time, but is he a professional photographer and astronaut who is entitled to comment on the moon circomstances and studio lightening ?
Or is it just a case of enthusiastic hearsay ?

Except when photography and computer experts closely examine the footage, they find it matches exactly what NASA claims.

NVIDIA vastly exagerated the surface albedo parameters to make sure the results would confirm the contrasts in a photograph featuring Buzz Alldrin.
You did watch the video i hope ? Users found their little misleading parameters !!!

I have no idea who your experts are .......

Hey dutchy, I see your on your moon hoax thing again.
I noticed your on the multiple light source thing again.

Here's a simple experiment for you.
Next time the sun is shining brightly in the sky,
Find a building and go stand in the shade of the building.
Make sure you can't see the sun at all.

Are you in complete darkness? No you are not.
Now put up a piece of 4X8 plywood so you are between the building and the plywood.
Are you in complete darkness now? No you are not.

Where does the light come from that allows you to see?
It is reflecting off of other buildings and objects in the vicinity.
This should tell you that light is hitting you from many directions.
Even though there is only one true source of light.

This should also tell you that there is the possibility of more than one shadow.
Have I tried to see multiple shadows in this situation? No.
The reason? I just thought of it and right now it is dark and -38C

Quote from: dutchy on January 12, 2018, 12:30:13 PM

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 12, 2018, 12:28:05 PM

https://www.fastcompany.com/3035937/nvidia-takes-on-apollo-11-moon-landing-deniers-with-technology

Fail, NVIDIA was caught faking it's own paramaters that garanteed the preferred outcome.
<< Failed video deleted >>

Fail, Jarrah White and you both ignore the commonly known fact that the reflectivity of much of the lunar surface is much higher back along the direction of the incident light.

If Jarrah White watched the Nvidia video carefully he might have learned this himself!

Nvidia Debunks Conspiracy Theories About Moon Landing
Look at around 7:10

The moon's dust (regolith) acts much like a retro-reflector.

Quote

Retro-Reflectivity on the moon
Description
Retro-reflectivity refers to the reflection of light back towards the source from which it originates. Like many natural surfaces, the Moon's surface reflects considerably more light back in this direction than would, say, a diffuse reflector like a sheet of paper or a surface sprayed with "flat" paint. One of the many manifestations of this is that the Full Moon (which is always viewed with the Sun "at our backs") is considerably brighter than might be expected from its surface brightness at other phases. Another is the "hot spots" seen in many photos taken from lunar orbit, where a bright patch is seen in the direction opposite the Sun (where one would expect to see the shadow of the spacecraft, if it were large enough to be visible). Yet another is the halo of light seen around the shadow of the head of an astronaut photographing his own shadow at close range.

The term retro-reflectivity can also be applied (less correctly) to sun-glints from large shiny surfaces. In this case, a strong flash of brightness (more properly called a specular reflection) is seen when the light source, surface and observer are at exactly the right angles (not necessarily 180°) to allow the surface to act as a mirror, shining the light into the observer's eyes. Specular reflections from flat or aligned surfaces on the Moon have been offered as a possible cause for some of the so-called Transient Lunar Phenomena. Although sun glints of this kind have been seen on Mars, none of the reported transient lunar brightenings has ever repeated when viewed again at the same combination of angles.

Additional Information
Causes
The moon's surface is covered by a layer of dust, called the regolith. This dust layer is thought to be the primary cause of the Moon's retro-reflectivity (an optical effect sometimes called the Lunar Heiligenschein). The hiding of shadows from coarser structures, like surface rocks and boulders may also play a role.
The "classic" Heiligenschein on Terrestrial surfaces
The term Heiligenschein (German for the "saintly glow"), sometimes used to describe the glow of the lunar retro-reflectivity, especially when seen around the shadow of an astronaut's head, is derived from a similar-appearing phenomenon observable on many of the Earth's surfaces. In particular, it was originally used to describe the diffuse colorless glow seen around the shadow of one's own head cast on dew-covered grass. It is sometimes also called the "Sylvanshine" and/or "Heiligenschein Streak" for the vertical column that is sometimes seen above the shadow of the observer's head.

From: Retro-Reflection phenomena, Retro-Reflectivity on the moon

This information is available from numerous sources and Jarrah White is negligent in not checking this out before his debunking effect.

And your ever-so-smart Jarrah White simulates this reflective behaviour with a bitumen road with reflective properties nothing like regolith!

.
Not only has he quite incorrectly used bitumen to simulate the lunar surface, but
1) he has blocked off any light from behind the toy LEM and
2) assumed a flat lunar surface.

No, Jarrah White's debunking attempt is a monstrous failure.

You have to reply to my last post to you on page 6 first and explain why you deliberately try to unify what can't be unified in my opinion.
If there was a chance to acknowledge that you agree that some comments about the lunar surface and stars are at least a bit ackward....... this is your chance !

Or you ignore it and keep claiming all comments made by astronauts and spokesmen alike are in perfect allignment.
If the latter is the case, i truly can't wrap my head around your forum attitude.

If you are so extremely stubborn about everything discussed here and never are forthcoming about whatever subject then i fear i can only undergo your lectures...... nothing more.
Remember i was man enough to acknowledge in front of you all that the eclips could work.
Sure a made some evasive manouvres afterwards just to support resistance is futile, because it was absolutely bizare the way you all treated him.

I like to answer this post, but show me what you are made of and if you have another flavour than claiming the highground about all subjects at the flatearth forums.

Hey dutchy, I see your on your moon hoax thing again.
I noticed your on the multiple light source thing again.

Here's a simple experiment for you.
Next time the sun is shining brightly in the sky,
Find a building and go stand in the shade of the building.
Make sure you can't see the sun at all.

Are you in complete darkness? No you are not.
Now put up a piece of 4X8 plywood so you are between the building and the plywood.
Are you in complete darkness now? No you are not.

Where does the light come from that allows you to see?
It is reflecting off of other buildings and objects in the vicinity.
This should tell you that light is hitting you from many directions.
Even though there is only one true source of light.

This should also tell you that there is the possibility of more than one shadow.
Have I tried to see multiple shadows in this situation? No.
The reason? I just thought of it and right now it is dark and -38C

And ?
I am sure your example works out fine......

NVIDIA vastly exagerated the surface albedo parameters to make sure the results would confirm the contrasts in a photograph featuring Buzz Alldrin.
You did watch the video i hope ? Users found their little misleading parameters !!!

And what experts told you that? Ones like Jarrah White who "simulated" the reflective properties of lunar regolith with  bitumen !

I have no idea who your experts are .......

And I have no idea who your experts are, but if they are no better than Jarrah White, Bart Sibrel and Bill Kaysing I'd suggest you find some more.

I personally wouldn't tackle all their stuff, but the little I've seen about the Van Allen belts and the "flag waving" are ludicrous!

Still, I would never suggest that a confirmed NASAphobe that totally ignores history could ever be convinced by evidence.
You could never be convinced by:

• The tracking of Apollo 11 on it's way to the moon by amateur and professional astronomers, HAM radio operators and the Russians
• Retro reflectors on the moon for laser ranging and
• Photos of the Apollo landing sites from Japanese and other lunar missions.

For those interested (not you dutchy) Astrobrant2 has some interesting stuff, as has Phil Webb and BertieSlack.
Some might offend poor old dutchy with their language, but compared to the downright slanderous accusations we've seen thrown at NASA and their personal, they're nothing.

C'mon dutchy.
In my example, do you not see the possibility of multiple shadows?

And yes I just tried it in the garage.
The sun was played by an led light about 12 ft from the table.
At an angle of about 60
The flag was played by a flat bottom marker.
The reflective surfaces (representing the lunar lander and say an astronaut
standing just out of frame)
Were played by a metallic electrical box and a white piece of paper respectively.

And yes I could get three shadows.
This by no means proves that people landed on the moon.
It simply disproves your assertion that multiple shadows proves the landings a hoax..

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 12, 2018, 03:34:58 PM

Quote from: dutchy on January 12, 2018, 01:56:06 PM

Quote from: frenat on January 12, 2018, 12:48:40 PM

Multiple light sources should cause multiple shadows on each object.  This is never seen.  Shadow lengths and directions can be explained with perspective and terrain.

Fair enough !
But since the film and photography professionals i mentioned claim the opposite i truly wonder who your professionals apart from the Clavius enthusiastic amatures, Phill Plait, Kris de Valle, frenat, Astrobrant and the very long list of Apollo supporters are ?
Sure,....lots of amature opinions explaining away the multiple shadows , different light angles and hotspots on the Apollo footage.
Non of these persons went to the moon, no real photographic experts.........so what is your criterea to draw such absolute conclusions that fully dismisses the appearant use of multiple studio lightening and spots ?

I know Jay windley plays church organ in his spare time, but is he a professional photographer and astronaut who is entitled to comment on the moon circomstances and studio lightening ?
Or is it just a case of enthusiastic hearsay ?

Except when photography and computer experts closely examine the footage, they find it matches exactly what NASA claims.

NVIDIA vastly exagerated the surface albedo parameters to make sure the results would confirm the contrasts in a photograph featuring Buzz Alldrin.
You did watch the video i hope ? Users found their little misleading parameters !!!

I have no idea who your experts are .......

I did not see that anywhere.  Can you tell me what they claimed it was and what it actually is?

Quote from: dutchy on January 12, 2018, 10:03:01 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on January 11, 2018, 04:42:18 PM

So what is your problem Mr NASAphobic Dutchy?

My problem is that :
Apollo 11 astronauts didn't see stars, some other missions reported seeing stars, the human eye can take considerable time to adjust therefor they could see stars after the right measurements and precutions of walking to the shade and take all the time to adjust..
DOES NOT IN ANYWAY EQUALLS
´When standing on the daylight surface of the moon the stars reveal themselves JUST AS they would during the night on earth, because of an absent atmosphere.´

It is this kind of fallacies and dodging tactics mostly known from politics that make some globers such a bunch of smart asses.
Never have i heard you or any other forum glober acknowledge the tiniest of tiniest improbabilities. It is your way...either take it or leave it !

Quote

Just curious, have you tried asking Tyson about this?  Sent an email or anything?
BOTH your statement.

No, because it is highly unlikely that he himself answers to me or any flatearther for that matter....and as so often will try to squeeze himself out of earlier statements by fancy jargon and supposed context.
Let him attent a symposium with flatearthers, who he challenges all the time in pre orchestrated settings, but never attends an open platform. Despite his severe concerns about education.
The guy rather drops a mike to make us look even more funny in a late night show full of drunks.......'

Quote

What about presenting some actual evidence that we did not get to the moon instead if all your subjective feelings?
But in the end, you will prove nothing about space, satellites or even the shape of the earth!

You closed the door , we can not discuss anything, because even the tiniest of tiniest mistakes are denied.....that is not a discussion but a lecture from professor rabinoz..... expert about all there is.

Quote

PS Has anybody told you that men went from the Globe earth to the small globe moon?
     Of course you have read all of Clavius, Moon
     and learned what a hash your photo experts made of thing, proving that they know nothing about photography,
     perspective, lighting, the reflectivity of the lunar surface etc, etc!

To the contrary......
David Percy, Marcus Allen, Massimo Mazzucco and other experts in the field of photography and film have done enough research to debunk many of the official photographs from Apollo.
Which professional photographer has claimed all footage of Apollo is 100% genuine and ABSOLUTE proof for the moon missions ?
Nasa spokesman Phill Plait from bad astronomer, Jay Windley from Clavius, the mythbusters, Mr science guy Bill Nye, Michu Kakutakawannabatara ...or whatever.... are no photographic experts but are extremely pompus to dismiss every claim about studio fakery......
And then of course we had ´him´ testifying they couldn´t fake the footage in 1969......

But it turned out that Collins was only an insignificant lightguy in those days.....hardly someone who could claim anything about the abilities to fake the Apollo footage in a studio environment.
Nevertheless all enthousiast amatures are expert on Apollo....like Jay Windley who is considered the voice of reason when it comes to debunking the moonhoax.

Massimo Mazzucco went around the world talking to the best of the best photographers of our days and the Apollo era.
I have seen a trailer and some parts of his coming docu in Italian.
Bottom line....real photographic experts are going to claim some of the footage was indeed constructed in a studio.
And who are your experts that claim every single photograph was shot on the moon......besides some enthousiastic amatures ?

But you never offer any actual evidence of fakery.  You only ever say it doesn't look right.  And you ignore all of the evidence that supports it.  Like the fact that they planted a mirror on the moon that you can bounce a laser off of.  And the fact that such a conspiracy would involve many thousands of people.  That alone is patently absurd.
Ignoring facts doesn't make you a free thinker.

Herr derrr, b but you never offer any evidence.

You freakin shill sum bitch, just STFU. He gives you evidence that you just don't understand or you are shilling for your controllers. I am sick of you butting in with plain old B's lies. You are pathetic and make me sick.

Keep the good work Dutchy, all the shills have been sent to thread to muddy the waters. My hat is off to you.

Quote from: rabinoz on January 11, 2018, 04:42:18 PM

So what is your problem Mr NASAphobic Dutchy?

My problem is that :
Apollo 11 astronauts didn't see stars, some other missions reported seeing stars, the human eye can take considerable time to adjust therefor they could see stars after the right measurements and precutions of walking to the shade and take all the time to adjust.

Sure, no problem there.

DOES NOT IN ANYWAY EQUALLS
´When standing on the daylight surface of the moon the stars reveal themselves JUST AS they would during the night on earth, because of an absent atmosphere.´

And why not?
An astronaut can be standing on the daylight surface of the moon,

• sufficiently in the shade to avoid any light from the bright lunar surface,
• wearing a spacesuit that does not have tinted and metallised layers on the faceplate and
• allow sufficient time for the eyes to adapt.

And will see stars just as he would during the night on earth.

Just remember that on earth you cannot normally go from full daylight directly to a a night situation.

I know you won't be convinced, tough! I don't know exactly what NdeGT was thinking or even said, so ask him!

But as I've said before, I wasn't there, you weren't there and Neil de Grasse Tyson wasn't there.

And in the end so what?
It has no bearing on whether they went to the moon or not and even that

Quote from: rabinoz on January 12, 2018, 02:44:12 PM

. . . . . . . . . . . .
Not only has heJarrah White quite incorrectly used bitumen to simulate the lunar surface, but
1) he has blocked off any light from behind the toy LEM and
2) assumed a flat lunar surface.

No, Jarrah White's debunking attempt is a monstrous failure.

You have to reply to my last post to you on page 6 first and explain why you deliberately try to unify what can't be unified in my opinion.

I don't have to do anything you or anyone else demands, Mr Dutchy!
But, out of the "goodness of my heart",
I did have a go at "DOES NOT IN ANYWAY EQUALLS" in: Do you believe Apollo 11 was a hoax? « Reply #204 on: Today at 12:39:44 PM »

If there was a chance to acknowledge that you agree that some comments about the lunar surface and stars are at least a bit ackward....... this is your chance !

I have said the same thing overe and over again!
I have given you all the answers I intend to on seeing stars!
And I put no weight on your remote psychoanalysing ability either.

Or you ignore it and keep claiming all comments made by astronauts and spokesmen alike are in perfect allignment.
If the latter is the case, i truly can't wrap my head around your forum attitude.

Did I claim that "all comments made by astronauts and spokesmen alike are in perfect alignment"?
I have tried to explain why I thought there may be differences in interpretation, etc.
You seem to disagree, but there's little I can do about that.

If you are so extremely stubborn about everything discussed here and never are forthcoming about whatever subject then i fear i can only undergo your lectures...... nothing more.
Remember i was man enough to acknowledge in front of you all that the eclips could work.

So?

Sure a made some evasive manouvres afterwards just to support resistance is futile, because it was absolutely bizare the way you all treated him.

Bully for you, but Resistance.is.Futile was nothing but a troll that was created (by he who shall remain nameless, I suspect) on May 19, 2017 for the sole purpose of annoying angry Globularists with his "Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False".
Looks like you were taken in by Resistance.is.Futile too!
Here is his last post: Flat Earth General / Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe « on: October 02, 2017, 03:08:20 AM »

I like to answer this post, but show me what you are made of and if you have another flavour than claiming the highground about all subjects at the flatearth forums.

What are you talking about?

Now another issue:
Now, backtrack a bit and you said

Therefor your idea of ''every country'', ''every scientist'' agrees about space achievements and the globe falls apart completely.

and I replied in:

Quote from: dutchy on January 11, 2018, 01:00:53 PM

Therefor your idea of ''every country'', ''every scientist'' agrees about space achievements and the globe falls apart completely.

Where did "your idea of ''every country'', ''every scientist'' agrees about space achievements" come from?
I'm sorry but I cannot find it. I have looked for similar statements, so give a reference where did I say that!
The only occurence I can find of similar words is:

Quote from: dutchy on January 11, 2018, 01:00:53 PM

Therefor your idea of ''every country'', ''every scientist'' agrees about space achievements and the globe falls apart completely.

and

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 11, 2018, 03:25:14 PM

Quote from: dutchy on January 11, 2018, 01:00:53 PM

Therefor your idea of ''every country'', ''every scientist'' agrees about space achievements and the globe falls apart completely.

Just curious, have you tried asking Tyson about this?  Sent an email or anything?

BOTH your statement.

You attributed the statement " 'every country', 'every scientist' agrees about space achievements and the globe" to me!
But the only place I can find that or a similar statements is in your own post.

Please explain where you got " 'every country', 'every scientist' agrees about space achievements and the globe".

Herr derrr, b but you never offer any evidence.

You freakin shill sum bitch, just STFU. He gives you evidence that you just don't understand or you are shilling for your controllers. I am sick of you butting in with plain old B's lies. You are pathetic and make me sick.

Keep the good work Dutchy, all the shills have been sent to thread to muddy the waters. My hat is off to you.

PS It's my thread that dutchy is trying "to muddy the waters" of!

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 12, 2018, 10:17:26 AM

Quote from: dutchy on January 12, 2018, 10:03:01 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on January 11, 2018, 04:42:18 PM

So what is your problem Mr NASAphobic Dutchy?

My problem is that :
Apollo 11 astronauts didn't see stars, some other missions reported seeing stars, the human eye can take considerable time to adjust therefor they could see stars after the right measurements and precutions of walking to the shade and take all the time to adjust..
DOES NOT IN ANYWAY EQUALLS
´When standing on the daylight surface of the moon the stars reveal themselves JUST AS they would during the night on earth, because of an absent atmosphere.´

It is this kind of fallacies and dodging tactics mostly known from politics that make some globers such a bunch of smart asses.
Never have i heard you or any other forum glober acknowledge the tiniest of tiniest improbabilities. It is your way...either take it or leave it !

Quote

Just curious, have you tried asking Tyson about this?  Sent an email or anything?
BOTH your statement.

No, because it is highly unlikely that he himself answers to me or any flatearther for that matter....and as so often will try to squeeze himself out of earlier statements by fancy jargon and supposed context.
Let him attent a symposium with flatearthers, who he challenges all the time in pre orchestrated settings, but never attends an open platform. Despite his severe concerns about education.
The guy rather drops a mike to make us look even more funny in a late night show full of drunks.......'

Quote

What about presenting some actual evidence that we did not get to the moon instead if all your subjective feelings?
But in the end, you will prove nothing about space, satellites or even the shape of the earth!

You closed the door , we can not discuss anything, because even the tiniest of tiniest mistakes are denied.....that is not a discussion but a lecture from professor rabinoz..... expert about all there is.

Quote

PS Has anybody told you that men went from the Globe earth to the small globe moon?
     Of course you have read all of Clavius, Moon
     and learned what a hash your photo experts made of thing, proving that they know nothing about photography,
     perspective, lighting, the reflectivity of the lunar surface etc, etc!

To the contrary......
David Percy, Marcus Allen, Massimo Mazzucco and other experts in the field of photography and film have done enough research to debunk many of the official photographs from Apollo.
Which professional photographer has claimed all footage of Apollo is 100% genuine and ABSOLUTE proof for the moon missions ?
Nasa spokesman Phill Plait from bad astronomer, Jay Windley from Clavius, the mythbusters, Mr science guy Bill Nye, Michu Kakutakawannabatara ...or whatever.... are no photographic experts but are extremely pompus to dismiss every claim about studio fakery......
And then of course we had ´him´ testifying they couldn´t fake the footage in 1969......

But it turned out that Collins was only an insignificant lightguy in those days.....hardly someone who could claim anything about the abilities to fake the Apollo footage in a studio environment.
Nevertheless all enthousiast amatures are expert on Apollo....like Jay Windley who is considered the voice of reason when it comes to debunking the moonhoax.

Massimo Mazzucco went around the world talking to the best of the best photographers of our days and the Apollo era.
I have seen a trailer and some parts of his coming docu in Italian.
Bottom line....real photographic experts are going to claim some of the footage was indeed constructed in a studio.
And who are your experts that claim every single photograph was shot on the moon......besides some enthousiastic amatures ?

But you never offer any actual evidence of fakery.  You only ever say it doesn't look right.  And you ignore all of the evidence that supports it.  Like the fact that they planted a mirror on the moon that you can bounce a laser off of.  And the fact that such a conspiracy would involve many thousands of people.  That alone is patently absurd.
Ignoring facts doesn't make you a free thinker.

Herr derrr, b but you never offer any evidence.

You freakin shill sum bitch, just STFU. He gives you evidence that you just don't understand or you are shilling for your controllers. I am sick of you butting in with plain old B's lies. You are pathetic and make me sick.

Keep the good work Dutchy, all the shills have been sent to thread to muddy the waters. My hat is off to you.

Have you ever said anything intelligent?  I'm guessing not.  Never add anything, just insult people and you call other people shills?  You'd actually be entertaining if you could manage to be smart or funny.
Maybe next life.  Good luck with that.

*water bubbles* in any footage of "moon landing".. in any era.. speak LOUDER than HARD ROCK MUSIC! 

*water bubbles* in any footage of "moon landing".

Evidence would be good! Your unsupported words mean nothing.