Yeah, I'll admit it. There are HBs (hoax-believers) in my family. I got into it with my dad at the dinner table tonight. OMG! He believed the Fox special. I must have been adopted. I'm happy to say that I shot down all his ideas, especially the one about the shadows. I even pointed out the multiple shadows by cups from different lights in the room. Thank you, Bad Astronomer for helping me show him the light.

Unless, this site is propaganda... That means all my beliefs are wrong! Common sense and knowledge is misleading! The Moon actually orbits the Earth! No!!!

BOOYAH!

__________________
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
--Bertrand Russell

Another victory against the Dark Powers.

Why did you post this in this forum though?

__________________
Freedom For Fission A breath of fresh Iodine-131

because he's happy and proud of him silly :wink:

__________________
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
--Bertrand Russell

I don't know how that example refutes a hoax belief. Some believe that multiple shadows require multiple lights. They believe that there should only be 1 shadow per object because we only have 1 sun. Since there are multiple shadows in lunar photos, they conclude that the photos could not have been taken on the moon.

What they fail to consider is that a reflective surface can cast light into areas shaded by other objects.

I thought the HB claim was that the shadows point in different directions, so there must be several light sources.

So Duane is pointing out that if there were several sources, there would be several shadows.

There are two general scenarios conspiracists give for their ratty shadow arguments:

1. Multiple light sources were used.
   
   This fails because if multiple distinct light sources were used, each object would cast multiple shadows of limited intensity, which is not observed.
   
2. A nearby light source was used.
   
   This fails because firstly is only covers divergent shadows and not all sorts of other ratty shadows cases that are used by conspiracists. It also fails because this hypothesis also implies that falloff and penumbral effects would be observed, which it isn't.

__________________
Freedom For Fission A breath of fresh Iodine-131

Who's Rob?

The Devil. He tried to drag me into applying for straight Physics at Oxford until I rebelled at went for Physics and Space Research at Birmingham. Good thing too as he didn't get an offer from Oxford anyway. We mustn't laugh because it's incredibly funny.

__________________
Freedom For Fission A breath of fresh Iodine-131

Let's see, there are 70 percent of americans that support the US efforts in Iraq. So maybe your Dad is or maybe your Dad is not supporting this. If he IS, you can tell him the same argument can be made to the existance of our troops there:

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=4682

or that WWII existed:

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...ht=sense+humor

LOL @ links! I could see Sibrel doing that and using us as references. Too bad my dad's anti-war.

The moon orbits the Earth? Say it isn't so!