Moon landings---a partial 'hoax'?

[nomo]

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

Let's see 'em.

[jingofever]

Nice images of the trackless photos are here and here.
I assume the shadowless flag is this image.
The intersecting shadows could be explained (or demonstrated) away here.

In the flag image if you look slightly above Buzz's shadow you can see what I assume is a very thin shadow, most likely cast from the flag pole.

I don't see any obvious tracks that the rover took to get into place in those images, though I do see some rover tracks in the first image. Near the bottom below the laser beam.

[nomo]

Nice images of the trackless photos are here and here.

Hmm. Maybe the astronauts lifted the thing to put it there?
(Or just to f**k with your head!)

[Dreams End]

Previous RI Moon Hoax threads

http://tinyurl.com/2vd9do

9 pages

http://tinyurl.com/3ygdgb

11 pages

Knock yourself out.

[jingofever]

Hmm. Maybe the astronauts lifted the thing to put it there?
(Or just to f**k with your head!)

The rover weighed about 80 pounds on the moon which isn't too much but the astronauts could not bend their knees very well while in their suits, possibly preventing a good grip for lifting. So I find you theory to be implausible at best. But, the rover could handle more than twice its weight. Perhaps the astronauts hauled another rover to that spot where they assembled it in place, then took the photo.

[Dreams End]

How would you explain the tracklessness in a soundstudio with a bunch of sand in it?

[yesferatu]

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?

I don't know what NASA did or did not do. Which is why I am open to investigation. I never said they altered shadows. I have reason to believe some shots are a set with nearby artificial lighting that is not the sun. But I am not 100% sure...just conclusions I have reached thru studying this stuff. Frame by frame is your take. My take is there were sets. Why? Fuck if I know. maybe most of their video and photos were "corrupted" with anomalous images in the background they could not release. How the hell do I know? It's just a working theory. At least I am not embarrassed to offer what I think. Others can look at the fakery all day and instead of offering theories as to why it would be faked, they belllow "they went goddammit!!" Well probably. But can I have theories for the fakery. Can't fit fakery and "they went" into your cranium? Not my dilemma.

Btw, the photos on the web pages are really lame when compared to what we are talking about with the most extreme examples pointing to moon-scene fakery.

[Iroquois]

The flag is on the opposite side of a low berm from the photographer. The berm blocks the view of where the shadow should fall.

And, I'd think carrying the buggy for any distance would be far too dangerous (if the event were actually to have taken place on the Moon). That the photograph was taken after the buggy was assembled in place makes much more sense.

With that said, I don't claim certainty about the Moon landings having taken place and do not consider questioning the official history of those events as an indication of impaired judgement, though perhaps that is just an indication of the inadequacy of my own judgement.

Unfortunately, due to some of my nephews (not me) having ties to the Armstrongs, this is about the only topic on this board I can not discuss with my family. It's kind of a guilty pleasure really. So, please carry on.

[Jeff]

How would you explain the tracklessness in a soundstudio with a bunch of sand in it?

This is the kind of question we need to ask more often if we're conspiracy theorists who really care about theory.

Too often it seems, every apparent anomaly gets swept up into the mix without care as to how they may build a case, even if they contradict one another, and even if the "theorists" themselves cannot resolve the anomalies. "Loose Change" does this, and Fetzer did it notoriously with his "Zapruder hoax."

Others can look at the fakery all day and instead of offering theories as to why it would be faked, they belllow "they went goddammit!!" Well probably. But can I have theories for the fakery. Can't fit fakery and "they went" into your cranium? Not my dilemma.

That's what I'm talking about. Fakery is your assumption, so let's hear your theory to account for it.

[Mel]

FWIW, I did a quick rendering using a 3D software package (I used the image below for object placement, and I ignored surface irregularities), and the software rendered the shadows more or less as they are seen in the photo.

[/img]

[yesferatu]

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.

I have respect for Jeff's time and energy used to manage this place. I do not respect it as equivalent to his house. It's like his house? If so, why would he, or anyone, want a bunch of nuts who use silly nicknames and dress up in costumes, to hang around his house where he eats and sleeps and works and always show up and basically loiter in his living space?
Where's this virtual punch bowl? I have a virtual Baby Ruth and I want to throw it in as a prank.
You know, it's just a friggin moon hoax question. Jeff's tone was he was personally offended and then says he has to watch "where his cows graze". He's not my Shepherd. If he wants to run a conspiracy site with certain taboo subjects then he needs to revise his rules and tell people that if they start moon hoax threads, then the host has the right to personally insult you with charges of impaired judgment, and that he will allow his 3 musketeer sycophants uncensored and uncontrolled free reign to do the nasty stuff for him, like the faithful attack dogs they are (pant..pant), insulting and deriding and throwing out garbage....yet derision coming from the other side shall be called out as "out of bounds" by sensitive people like yourself who are anxious over Jeff like a todddler so that he will not be exposed to being questioned in any vigorous, unsettling manner.

He already has created an atmosphere where people apologize if they bring up a subject they pulled from GLP or Rense or Alex Jones.

Again, if he wants a specialized eclectic conspiracy site, he needs to write some rules so those who bring up the "bad" subjects will know that if they post about them, they are open to demeaning insults and possibly being banned if they persist. (That should get your juices flowing, pan)
Otherwise, I am going to try and argue the points, and if insults start, then I will hurl them as fast as they come.

Jeff's tone in this thread was he was personally offended by the subject. He puts across indignance. Ha-rumph!!
And rarely goes point for point.
Since there are no rules and I am not a sycophant, I should be able to say some things about these debate tactics without you constantly wringing your hands over Jeff's emotioanl health. Hopefully you will not be turning into an RI attack puppy (pant! pant! good boy).
Please try to refrain from McCain-esque solutions to everything: ban ban ban....banned banned by pan....

[Jeff]

You know, it's just a friggin moon hoax question. Jeff's tone was he was personally offended and then says he has to watch "where his cows graze". He's not my Shepherd.

To be clear, I said "My cows aren't sacred, just finicky about where they graze" in response to the question of why lunar landing was a "sacred cow." I don't mean to shepherd anyone.

Personally offended? No. Does my skin seem unduly thin? I do find the the evidence for a moon hoax laughably thin, but there's nothing personal about it beyond it being my opinion.

If he wants to run a conspiracy site with certain taboo subjects....

How many more times do Moon hoax advocates need reassurance that it's not a taboo subject? I just want a number.

[philipacentaur]

I'm guessing the number would be an irrational one.

[jingofever]

More on the tracks.

This is a link to an image showing the area just to the right of the rover from the first "trackless" image I linked to above. You can see the tracks leading up to it quite clearly if you request and then download the large image.

Here is a similar link for the second linked image. In the area just to the right you can see tracks leading up to the rover but losing their definition before they reach it.

Btw, the photos on the web pages are really lame when compared to what we are talking about with the most extreme examples pointing to moon-scene fakery.

Maybe you could expound on that. They show shadows that seem to diverge because one is cast onto a slope and the specific photo involved diverging shadows and slopes, so it doesn't seem lame to me.

But what is it? Can the shadows appear to diverge and still be parallel or is that impossible? Maybe I misread your previous post or maybe I need another kindergarten lesson.

So far my dilemma is trying to fit "no evidence of fakery" and "they faked." But I'm just another NASA apologist. Is it true that the only thing worse than a reformed drunk is a NASA apologist?

[yesferatu]

I'm guessing the number would be an irrational one.

Or my interpretation of this:

woof...grrrrr
then....
looking up at Jeff: pant! pant!

toss him his treat, Jeff.