No one has yet to provide any information on the previously mentioned "explanation" for the waving flag that in included pulleys and such. Again, I have never seen that claim prior to this thread.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Rusty Lander
Firstly, you have demonstrated (to me in any case) the reason for the different-angled shadows is not that there is only one light source (this has been a bad assumption made by HBers) but rather the proximity of the source. The articifial studio light you used was a very short distance away (just a few feet or perhaps a bit more? - enlighten me) thus making shadowing very sensitive to where any particular object is in relation to the angle and distance of the light source.
|
Your intuition fails you. While a close light source would provide a difference in shadow lengths depending upon proximity (on a flat surface), it would, in fact, be exactly the opposite effect. A local light source would provide short shadows of closer objects getting light from a higher angle (i.e. objects more below the light) while farther objects would have longer shadows from the smaller angle. However, this can not account for shadow images where the astronaut farther from the light source has a shorter shadow than the astronaut closer to the light source. Oops. The only way to get the effect shown in the pictures is for the terrain to be uneven and use one light source that is fairly distant.
Quote:
|
The same applies to all the other things you showed - the reflection of light bouncing off the surface, why the flag is "lit up" on both sides, the quality of taking the photos themselves - in fact, what you've actually proved Jay, is just how it could have all been done artificially since that is exactly what you did yourself. The quality of the photos you produced look very close (from what we could see) to what the "real" moon shots photos look like!
|
Jay did not point out the various things that would be difficult or impossible to fake, and how the set they used and the photos they took would not match the real thing. He wasn't trying to show the difficulty of faking, but the problems with the descriptions given by the HBers. That's a different argument.
Quote:
|
To prove the shadow business at least, you should have set up all the same stuff during the day (as well as? or instead of?) with only the sun as your light source and taken some photos and then we could see how the shadows behaved which would have given a fairer assessment of what you were trying to prove.
|
But that's a problem, because the daytime sky acts as a huge diffuse light source, softening shadows and ruining some of the effects he is trying to demonstrate.
Quote:
|
What I will say is this - you say that even with powerful lighting from 100 feet you couldn't get it to light up very much but the point is, if done in some kind of artifical setting (studio or desert) the lighting wouldn't be anywhere near as much as 100 feet away, but alot less. Surely the lighting would be strong enough at that distance.
|
Once again, your intuition fails you. The use of close up lighting would provide diffusion effects and multiple shadow angles.
Quote:
Hey, loosen up guys, didn't you see the wink at the end of that last post I made? 
|
How are we supposed to tell the difference between your jokes and your real beliefs when you also say:
Quote:
In fact, I think the problem with many HBs (including myself) is that we have been misinformed by these HB "leaders", as it were, who have stated faulty arguments which have rightly been shot down as being flawed. In fact, I wonder that they aren't disinformation agents being used, either knowingly or unknowingly, to make it look as if the idea of the moon landings being a hoax, is in itself a hoax.
The problem with HBers is not so much a belief in a hoax, but why they belive it. They believe it for the wrong reasons (faulty arguments). The right questions haven't been asked and the wrong evidence has been presented.
I believe there is something very suspect about the Apollo missions, but to be honest, it is perhaps beyond my knowledge to present feasable arguments that would stand up to the high standards and scrutiny of this board. So I think I should just leave this for now. However, I put it to you that only one source of light was needed to fake the landings.
What I DO believe, is that this pro vs anti Apollo war is deliberately perpetuated or encouraged by NASA to smokescreen something else. While they pro and anti factions are fighting, they are diverted from something else has been secretly going on concerning NASA and the moon and mars... :?
|
[bolding added for emphasis]
Sorry if I've lost the ability to detect jokes from conspiracists, but I've seen too much stuff far sillier passed off as straight beliefs to be able to tell the difference anymore.
Quote:
|
Since NASA's claim has always been that we've been to the moon, isn't the "burden of proof" (a well-used phrase here I notice) on them to prove they did so?
|
They've long since satisfied the burden of proof. The burden of proof is on those who would cast alternate explanations.
Quote:
|
And when will we finally wrap this thread up so we can all forget about it?
|
If you will admit your errors, that would be a good start.
-----
Edited for coding