rigorousintuition.ca

This guy addresses diverging shadows. What should the shadows be doing?

Mr. Hellpop--

I certainly second your statement -- "Why is the moon landing a sacred cow?"

As to Jeff's earlier comments to me-- Again, a very odd misdirection going on. I know full well I am not literally being "forbidden" from something. We've got some kind of conversational escape technique being implemented. I'd say that's indicative.

Let's review this thread-- I was asking a much larger question here. I'm factoring in the credible testimony of many whistle blowers and eyewitnesses...the NASA employees who speak of massive photo alterations and cover-ups regarding many things. I'm factoring in Gordon Cooper, and Phillip Corso who was a national security advisor to President Eisenhower and on MacArthur's staff.

I'm factoring in General MacArthur's statements at West Point. Also, a number of eyewitnesses reporting face-to-face meetings with "ETs" and government leaders back in the 50's.
http://www.abidemiracles.com/56789.htm

So...I am proposing that NASA is hiding something. Maybe something BIG. What might it be exactly? I don't know exactly. But limiting the conversation by saying that we cannot justifiably review any potential scam or hoaxing in regard to the NASA space program...is completely absurd.

I am not (repeat...not) hot on the trail of exposing a faked moon mission, but in trying to undertake an overall review of the bigger picture of what NASA and the government might be up to...I am being told that certain topics are 'verboten'.

I have been informed that these issues and questions have already been 'resolved' by the appropriate parties (individuals other than myself, presumably). It reminds me of medieval church orthodoxy, frankly.

If some folks here have good solid answers about intersecting shadows (and such) then good! But the strange thing that has happened here is...an eruption of derision and guffawing, albeit in a rather polite way (thank you) and then a strange preemptive announcement that any such discussion indicates "impaired judgment".

If 'they' (the PTB) have successfully hidden hurricane-creating technology from us (see comments from William Cohen), and are hiding dramatically advanced nanotechnology, and have access to "alien" technology as Joe Firmage maintains (a guy who made $100 million in Silicon Valley and would seem to have a clear head on his shoulders)...how do we know what these guys are...or are not...doing?

Precluding possibilities at this stage of the game is just nonsense. Whether some aspects of NASA's flights into outer space have been faked/fudged...is the least of my concerns. BUT...by setting these strange artificial parameters of what is or isn't credible or plausible, the message is clear:

Even a relatively minor departure from mainstream thinking is considered "impaired judgment" so...FOR SURE then, all these other much more dramatic subject matters that I've touched on are off limits. I get it. I get the message.

And thus we have arrived at the edge of Pleasantville. I have spoken with the town elders and they have informed me that to even ask such questions (that's right...the mere asking of a question) is to have "impaired judgment". I think I'm hearing Gregorian chants somewhere in the background.

Roth,

Its a strange world. We agree... WEIRD.

Point is in my view, to everyone involved in this thread, from my opinion, is that no certainty can be given toward anything. A skeptic's life is a life of hell. Did we land on the moon? It isn't something I've experienced. Does Vladamir Putin actually exist? I've never met him. If a tree falls in the forest and none are around to hear, does it make a sound?

Seriously though, I don't agree that credibility is automatically thrown out the window as soon as an individual starts claiming something contrary (moon landing fakery) to accepted wisdom. What right do we have to throw it out the window?

You know what it means when you assUme? It makes an ASS out of U and ME. Thus, assuming the moon landing fakery is over-the-top conspiratoria is..., what else? Not our right because we aren't in the position of knowing.

rothbardian wrote:
So...I am proposing that NASA is hiding something. Maybe something BIG. What might it be exactly? I don't know exactly. But limiting the conversation by saying that we cannot justifiably review any potential scam or hoaxing in regard to the NASA space program...is completely absurd.

I seriously doubt there is anyone here who would argue that NASA has nothing to hide. I believe they hide a great deal.

Permit me to repeat myself: "Anyone who doubts the general statement that men have visited the Moon has dug a credibility hole as far as I'm concerned. (And please note the distinction between accepting that general statement and being an apologist for every press release and photograph issued by NASA.)"

If we can agree that men really did visit the Moon, then maybe we can talk about all sorts of possible NASA mischief. If not, then I don't think I can for fear of my head exploding.

I am not (repeat...not) hot on the trail of exposing a faked moon mission, but in trying to undertake an overall review of the bigger picture of what NASA and the government might be up to...I am being told that certain topics are 'verboten'.

Again, though I've been excoriated for pointing it out, the topic is not forbidden.

My cows aren't sacred, just finicky about where they graze.

Occult Means Hidden wrote:
Seriously though, I don't agree that credibility is automatically thrown out the window as soon as an individual starts claiming something contrary (moon landing fakery) to accepted wisdom.

But neither do I. Responding on a board only gives the illusion of automatic rejection. I've examined Moon hoax arguments before and, to my own satisfaction, rejected them.

What right do we have to throw it out the window?

We have a responsibility to ourselves to exercise discernment in order to gate-keep our own minds.

Partial fake seems a fair theory. I will relate a personal conversation I had ten years ago in with the CEO of an engineering firm.

I used to work in the autmotive industry, published a couple of auto mags and conferences/exhibitions. I was in Detroit for the auto show, standing in a queue waiting to buy a cup of coffee.

Me: umm, excuse me sir, I am a limey and I don't quite understand what cents and dimes are.

Bob: thats a cent, thats a dime.

Me: Cheers

Bob: which part of England you from

Me: london

Bob starts talking about his times in England during WW2,

Bob: Would you like to join me at my table

Me: sure

Bob, hands me his business card, he is the CEO of a respected auto engineering component manufacturer that holds his name. We get a rappor going. After awhile we get onto the subject of the villans, crooks and manipulators (legal parasites) within the auto industry.

Bob: You know Mark I can tell you some stories and I would love to write a book about these bastards some day...

Me: Why dont ya then?

Bob: they would sue my ass off.

Me: Simple, base it in fiction then or better still put it on another planet .... no one could sue you then ... I

Bob's face scrunches up, looks me deep in the eyes and says

Bob: Do you know me?

Me: Nope...why?

Bob: you sure you don't know who I am?

Me: Never met you Bob...Why?

Bob, goes onto explain that he used to work for NASA and was an engineer on the moon buggy, for the first landing. Bob tells me about when astronaught (sorry forget the name) attempted the first moon drive. Apparently it had a two gear system of pulleys for forward and back, the astronaught had forgotten this and the moon buggy did not shift.

Bob: I was shouting at the screen "use the other gear/pully" finanlly the buggy moved on....the rest was history.

Me: wow ....

This man had no need to lie to me and face to face he was convincing as anyone. To me he was not a central player, but certainly had his stake in the venture.... still agnostic on whether it was faked or not, partial fake sits better after meeting this guy. It was one of the best coffee conversations I have ever had.

Why is the moon landing a sacred cow?

It's not, far from it. Just that once you examine people's claims properly, there's no reason to believe it was faked, and lots of things that meant that it's not possible for it to have been faked.

Certainly as i said NASA (like anyone) will alter/clean up images for publicity purposes. Also there are many photos of simulations and tests that muddy the waters if they're confused with the actual moon photos. And i'm certainly open to the idea that would have censored or altered certain photos if they found something that needed hiding. However i've never found any specific examples of this that ring true. Most i've encountered turn out to be based on misconceptions about photography, for example JPEG artifacts interpreted as deliberate "blurring." Also the more plausible theories are almost always presented alongside implausable and definitely incorrect ones, and/or used to support incorrect ideas (moon landing faked etc) so they lack credibility to say the least.

I mean it's not as if you and I can prove it by hopping over to the moon and looking for evidence.

That's nonsense, there's plenty of evidence here on earth. Noone needs to go to the moon to prove it, and if they DID no doubt most moon hoax theorists would claim this new mission and all it's "proof" of the original landing was ALSO a hoax.

Where do you see proof of one light source (the sun) on the moon in those photos?

Well the fact that there are shadows from only one light source? If you saw shadows like this on a photo of an earth landscape theres NO WAY you'd bat an eyelid. Only because you're scouring the moon photos for "evidence" of fakery (or rather, you're gullibally taking the lieing word of others who are doing so) do you "see" anything "wrong."

Anyway as i said, has been totally debunked a million times if you cared to research. The link above seems OK and there are plenty more on other sites if you have problems with that. Find them yourself, I'm done taking this particular horse to water.

orz wrote:"Diverging shadows" is out and out gibberish, and I have no idea how on earth it's supposed to demonstrate that the photos are fake. It makes no sense.

Another apparently inspirational image from the NASA archive. All seems fine at first but notice the numerous directions in which the shadows are falling (marked with arrows).

This indicates that the image is probably composed of several images taken at different times (probably in a top secret studio guarded by specially trained aliens working as government agents) and joined together using advanced technology NASA always denies existed at the time.



Just way too many things wrong with this picture!

Notice the absence of stars again.

The arrows indicate the various directions in which shadows are falling, again showing evidence of inconsistent scene illumination. Yet there is something even more obviously wrong with this picture.

If the length of the lower support column of the lunar lander was 4 feet tall, this would indicate that the astronaut was over 8 feet tall, which none of the astronauts were.

http://www.stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_l ... ndings.htm

Haha you beat me to it!

jingofever wrote:This guy addresses diverging shadows. What should the shadows be doing?

I agree that the shadows do diverge, but only at the same rate as the street does. So they still converge at near 'infinity' or near the horizon, just like the opposite sides of the curb would. His yellow lines there of convergence are not correct and are a little deceiving IMO.
The z-axis does play a part in the uneven casting of shadows when viewed from angles, and especially the uneven surface of the ground, which explains to me the lunar shadows being cast.
There is a dip behind and around the the lunar module, which looks like it should make the shadow turn counter clockwise a wee bit.:

Another good illustration of the fallacy of "diverging shadows" is found here:

CLAIM: Shadows cast on the lunar surface should be parallel. Some shadows in the Apollo photos are not parallel indicating more than one light source, thus the photos are fakes.

Again there is a sound explanation; it is a simple a matter of perspective. A photo is a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional world, hence parallel lines may not appear as such on film. We all know how lines on a highway appear to diverge as they approach the observer, yet we know they are parallel. Another important factor that comes into play here is the slope of the ground. Let's consider two shadows - one cast on an upward slope and the other on a downward slope. If viewed from the side, these shadows would appear to go off in different directions. However, if viewed from high above, they would be seen as parallel. In other words, looks can be deceiving. There is no evidence of NASA trickery here.

This photograph [see photo], taken on Earth, is an excellent example illustrating how perspective causes shadows to appear non-parallel when seen on film.



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.



Like John Judge says, not all conspiracy theories are created equal, and there's no party line that obliges us to accept them all merely because they contradict conventional wisdom. And after the arguments for the Moon hoax have been rebutted, that's all it has left: its contrariness. Not good enough.


My son and I stand beneath the great night sky
And gaze up in wonder
I tell him the tale of Apollo
And he says "Why did they ever go?"
It may look like some empty gesture
To go all that way just to come back
But don't offer me a place out in cyberspace
Cos where in the hell's that at?
Now that the space race is over
It's been and it's gone and I'll never get to the Moon
Because the space race is over
And I can't help but feel that we're all just going nowhere - Billy Bragg

To me, the most interesting thing is not whether or not we went there (pretty sure we did) but whether or not there were UFO's, whether there were artificial structures, or whether the moon itself is artificial.

The "did we go?" question just distracts from "what did we find?"

Trifecta--

I was interested in your comments about the NASA guy you met. What was it about that encounter that caused you to think along the lines of possible fakery from NASA? I didn't quite follow your thought there.

And to anyone else--

I'm still interested in the photo showing intersecting shadows. Is there an explanation? And what about the trackless rover photos? How does that work? And I've seen the one photo where the American flag is failing to cast a shadow. That seems pretty hard to explain.

Again, I was just looking at this as part of a larger overall view of NASA's creepiness.

Orz makes the comment-- "Certainly as i said NASA (like anyone) will alter/clean up images for publicity purposes."

"Certainty" is a great thing to have. It's a little hard to follow the logic though. Others who try to suggest possible signs of deception from NASA are all spouting "gibberish". But elsewhere there is the acknowledgment that they ARE fudging some stuff?

If I am understanding the thought processes here...it's OK to point out "hoaxing' elements as long as we understand that it's only being done for less sordid purposes...not greatly sordid purposes. That's seems completely arbitrary. It's like those who argue against 9/11 'truth' because they can only conceive of the Bush cabal perpetrating 'minor' evil as opposed to 'great' evil.

And then there's Nomo, gatekeeper for Pleasantville, dishing out the punishment for broaching forbidden topics? You've really got to watch that movie, Nomo. You'll recognize yourself instantly. (Or were you just having a little fun? I'm not sure of your views on the government's capacity for great, premeditated evil.)

rothbardian wrote: Orz makes the comment-- "Certainly as i said NASA (like anyone) will alter/clean up images for publicity purposes."

I'm going out on a limb suggesting that Orz means that certainly, NASA would "sex up" its images. You know, adding a little splash of colour here, removing some specks there. That's quite a common practice and it doesn't mean wholesale fakery, although admittedly that's a thin line.

rothbardian wrote:And then there's Nomo, gatekeeper for Pleasantville, dishing out the punishment for broaching forbidden topics? You've really got to watch that movie, Nomo. You'll recognize yourself instantly. (Or were you just having a little fun? I'm not sure of your views on the government's capacity for great, premeditated evil.)

Ayup, just having a little fun. (Ahem. Given the imagery I posted, I thought that would've been kinda obvious to such rigorous photo analysts as yourself.)

I guess the point some of us are trying to get at regarding this whole moon landing "controversy", is that just like WTC "controlled demolition", the topic is used to portray the gullible souls who fall for it as complete morons, and thus by extension ridicule everybody else who dares to question official narratives.

I much prefer Monster's question: assuming we did go to the Moon (and why the hell not) what did we find there?

rothbardian wrote: If I am understanding the thought processes here...it's OK to point out "hoaxing' elements as long as we understand that it's only being done for less sordid purposes...not greatly sordid purposes. That's seems completely arbitrary. It's like those who argue against 9/11 'truth' because they can only conceive of the Bush cabal perpetrating 'minor' evil as opposed to 'great' evil.

Well then you've certainly misunderstood me. The issue is not degrees of evil, it's degrees of plausibility.

And this is the problem with making "Truth" a subset of political and moral judgement. They are evil, therefore the worst and most radical conclusions as to their actions holds true does not compute.