[person1234]

So I'm new to the flat earth video and recently watched a video from TruTv which is about the technology required to fake the moon landing.



The main topic is that the parallel sun rays in the moon landing. If normal studio lighting was used the shadows would diverge and there would be no parallel sun rays. The only way this could be faked in a studio is if they had access to a wall of millions of laser lights. The estimated cost of this would be more than the entire Apollo project. This was a massive problem though because laser lights cost a large amount during this time. Normal laser lights would also not work because they were too large. The other problem with laser lights is that they only put out red light probably because they didn't have the technology for other colors so using laser lights would've been impossible. This could've been developed with computer graphics but the computer graphics required were only created 40 years later.

The next point is that if Nasa were able to create computer graphics that were 40 years ahead of their time. They would then have to make over 400 000 nasa employees at that time keep both the secret that nasa faked the landing and everyone who could've created this computer graphic software. They would then have to convince Spain, England, Australia to work with them and lie that they independently picked up on the transmission from space. Most importantly they would have to convince Russia who had been their rival throughout the entire coldwar and had also probably dedicated billions in trying to beat America in the space race or billions faking that they were participating in the space race. This task would've probably been nye impossible because it was still the cold war. Since the moon landing Russia has never claimed the space landing was faked.

I was wondering if there was an explanation to why this debunking is false.

[Tom Bishop]

If normal studio lighting was used the shadows would diverge and there would be no parallel sun rays

This is a false premise. The shadows from the Apollo media are not parallel.





Parallel shadows do not always occur on Earth either

[person1234]

Thanks, that explains the first half but what about the second half about how they convinced multiple world governments and superpowers help them and also I forgot to mention they layed retroreflectors on the moon which can be seen with some very expensive telescopes. How is that explained.

[JSS]

Parallel shadows do not always occur on Earth either

This picture actually supports the Moon landings as an example of how lens distortion can create these sorts of images. 

At first glance it would appear the Sun isn't casting parallel shadows and it seems reasonable to say that shadows on Earth are not always parallel.

But look closely and examine the shadows and try and figure out where the light source is coming from.  The post on the left has the shadow going to the right, so the Sun must be to the left of the picture.  But the shadow on the post on the right is going to the left, so the Sun must be on the right side of the picture.

But wait... the Sun can't be on both the left and right side!

It's easy to conclude that this is evidence that what you are seeing is lens distortion, because otherwise the image would be impossible.  There is nowhere you can put a light source to create those shadows, the Sun can't be in two places at once.

It's certainly an interesting image that demonstrates how difficult it is to judge angles of a photograph, and is used often to debunk Moon hoax theories.

[Tom Bishop]

NASA hired some people to write a book to try to debunk the hoax claims, which was turned into a website called Clavius. They claim it's a combination of terrain and perspective which can cause shadows to converge.

http://www.clavius.org/a11rear.html

Fig. 2 - Converging shadows of objects lit by the sun. A combination of terrain and perspective produces shadows in the upper right of the image that appear to lie almost at right angles to the shadow of the photographer.

[person1234]

I understand about why the first half might be wrong, but does anyone has an explanation about how the reflectors were put on the moon if people haven't gone too the moon and other practicalities about how to convince that 400 000 people and governments.

[Tumeni]

There's too much third-party evidence for the landings to have been faked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

[Tom Bishop]

I understand about why the first half might be wrong, but does anyone has an explanation about how the reflectors were put on the moon if people haven't gone too the moon

Those laser experiments are government/NASA funded. We were recently talking about this in AR:

After 40 years' reflection, laser moon mirror project is axed - https://web.archive.org/save/https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/jun/21/mcdonald-observatory-space-laser-funding

Government funded:

  “ The National Science Foundation (NSF) last week wrote to scientists working at the McDonald Laser ranging station at Fort Davis in Texas to tell them the annual $125,000 funding for their research project was going be terminated following a review of its scientific merits. ”

Used by NASA as evidence for Apollo:

  “ The mirror's existence, and the fact that astronomers can bounce lasers off it and detect the returning beam, has also provided Nasa and other scientists with compelling evidence to refute the claims of moon-landing deniers who claim the Apollo lunar mission were hoaxes filmed in an Earth-based studio. ”

So the government funded something so that NASA could prove that they went to the Moon.

Not only did NASA cite the McDonald Observatory experiments as evidence they went to the Moon, they directly funded McDonald Observatory lunar ranging experiments with the National Science Foundation. See: http://www.archive.org/stream/nasa_techdoc_19750066483/19750066483#page/n0/mode/2up

Flip to the second page and you will find "This work is supported by NASA Grant NGR-44-012-165"

Apache Point Observatory

The lunar ranging equipment at the Apache Point Observatory was also supported and funded by NASA --

http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/

"Finally, we thank NASA for supporting APOLLO and enabling it to get "off the ground", and more recently, a joint effort by NASA and the National Science Foundation to fund APOLLO at a level that will allow project completion and production of the first science results."

Table Mountain Observatory

Argon Laser Shot to the Moon - http://www.w7ftt.net/laser1.html

At the bottom of that article:

"Table Mountain Observatory, operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), is located just west of the
town of Wrightwood, California at an elevation of 7500 feet."

The Jet Propulsion Laboratory happens to be a NASA facility.

How very convenient of NASA, when defending its scam with Lunar Ranging claims, to neglect to disclose they they themselves fund those experiments.

and other practicalities about how to convince that 400 000 people and governments.

Contractors do what they are told. Build me a simulation for this, build me a model for that, write a research document for this, create a theory for doing that.

Many of the governments rely on NASA for a lot of stuff.

https://www.planetary.org/explore/the-planetary-report/australia-space-program.html

  “ The fact that so many countries seem to want a space program implies an inherent value to exploring space, but what is it? Last year, Australia became the latest country to announce the formation of its own space agency. The process took a significant step forward in March with a new report recommending goals and focus for its space agency.

The report also provides insight about why Australia sees space as a valuable enterprise. The report highlights several areas where the country could leapfrog others by strategically investing in specific capabilities (for example, artificial intelligence or quantum computing) and sets out a goal of tripling the size of the Australian space industry by 2030. One of the keys to succeeding in this new effort, the report declares, will be international partnerships.

International partnerships provide the means for countries to participate in the exploration of space without having to create expensive, enabling infrastructure from the ground up. They can leverage the space capabilities of other nations while providing unique contributions to the benefit of their own industry and scientific base. This is the opposite of a zero-sum, competitive mentality of international relations; a rising rocket lifts all spacecraft, if you will. The European Space Agency’s very existence relies on this model. Its BepiColombo mission—as you will read in this issue—includes contributions from 13 European member states, the United States, and Japan. This coalition of nations is deeply invested in the success of the mission, spreading out the cost and also the political support. ”

NASA is encouraged to help other countries do space activities.

NASA AND INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN SPACE - https://spacepolicyonline.com/topics/international-space-activities/

  “ International cooperation has been a hallmark of NASA’s programs throughout its history. The law that created NASA, the 1958 National Aeronautics and Space Act, included Section 205 that encouraged NASA to cooperate with other countries. A 2014 report by NASA’s Office of International and Interagency Relations states that NASA has signed over 3,000 international agreements since its inception. The report, Global Reach: A View of NASA’s International Cooperation, lists international cooperative projects ongoing at NASA at the time of publication. ”

[JSS]

I understand about why the first half might be wrong, but does anyone has an explanation about how the reflectors were put on the moon if people haven't gone too the moon

Those laser experiments are government/NASA funded. We were recently talking about this in AR:

Not all of them.  One of note is the Grasse Laser Ranging Station based at the Côte d’Azur Observatory in France which uses laser range finding using the Moon's retroreflectors and verified NASAs findings. They are certainly not funded by NASA.

"Observations from the Grasse lunar laser ranging station have been made on a daily basis since the first echoes obtained in 1981.

Source:  https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019EA000785@10.1002/(ISSN)2169-9100.APOLLO50

And here is them bouncing a laser off of a Russian rover.  That's not NASA funded either.

Scientists have successfully bounced a laser off the Soviet Union's old Lunokhod 1 rover, which trekked across the moon's landscape more than four decades ago.
Lunokhod 1 was the first remote-controlled rover ever to land on another celestial body. The wheeled vehicle was carried to the lunar surface by a spacecraft called Luna 17, touching down in the Sea of Rains on Nov. 17, 1970.
Among its instruments, the rover toted a French-built laser retroreflector consisting of 14 corner cubes that can reflect laser light beamed from Earth.

Source: https://www.space.com/20865-soviet-moon-rover-lunokhod-laser.html

[Tom Bishop]

I understand about why the first half might be wrong, but does anyone has an explanation about how the reflectors were put on the moon if people haven't gone too the moon

Those laser experiments are government/NASA funded. We were recently talking about this in AR:

Not all of them.  One of note is the Grasse Laser Ranging Station based at the Côte d’Azur Observatory in France which uses laser range finding using the Moon's retroreflectors and verified NASAs findings. They are certainly not funded by NASA.

Incorrect. NASA is involved in this. Grasse is part of the International Laser Ranging Service (ILRS) network. NASA is part of the governance of the ILRS.

https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2017/06/aa28590-16.pdf

"Among the 40 SLR stations of the International Laser Ranging Service (ILRS) network, only a few stations are able to detect echoes on the Moon. Consequently, only four stations supply Earth-Moon range observations to the ILRS database: APOLLO (New Mexico, USA), McDonald (Texas, USA), Matera (Italy) and Grasse (France)."

https://space-geodesy.nasa.gov/docs/2017/ILRS_IAGTravaux_20170602.pdf

International Laser Ranging Service (ILRS)

"The ILRS is the international source that provides Satellite Laser Ranging (SLR) and
Lunar Laser Ranging (LLR) observation data and data products for scientific and
engineering programs with the main focus on Earth and Lunar applications. The basic
observables are the precise two-way time-of—flight of ultra-short laser pulses from
ground stations to retroreflector arrays on satellites and the Moon and the one-way
time-of-flight measurements to space-borne receivers (transponders). These data sets
are made available to the community through the CDDIS and the EDC archives, and are
also used by the ILRS to generate fundamental data products, including: accurate
satellite ephemerides, Earth orientation parameters, three-dimensional coordinates and
velocities of the ILRS tracking stations, time-varying geocenter coordinates, static and
time-varying coefficients of the Earth’s gravity field, fundamental physical constants,
lunar ephemerides and librations, and lunar orientation parameters."

~



And just go to the ILRS website:

https://ilrs.gsfc.nasa.gov/

[JSS]

I understand about why the first half might be wrong, but does anyone has an explanation about how the reflectors were put on the moon if people haven't gone too the moon

Those laser experiments are government/NASA funded. We were recently talking about this in AR:

Not all of them.  One of note is the Grasse Laser Ranging Station based at the Côte d’Azur Observatory in France which uses laser range finding using the Moon's retroreflectors and verified NASAs findings. They are certainly not funded by NASA.

Incorrect. NASA is involved in this. Grasse is part of the International Laser Ranging Service (ILRS) network. NASA is part of the governance of the ILRS.

NASA is not funding the Côte d’Azur Observatory, France is.

The laser range finding done on the Russian lunar explorer didn't involve NASA.

You can find projects that measure the moons distance done without any funding by NASA and not controlled by them.  NASA would have to have quite a strong grip on these other observatories to force them to lie about their results for decades. What is their leverage?

If we have to throw out any data by anyone who has ever had any contact with NASA or it's data, that covers literally every observatory.

[AATW]

Parallel shadows do not always occur on Earth either

Those shadows are parallel.

We have been through this in discussions about crepuscular rays. Lines which are parallel in reality can appear not to be depending on the angle you are looking at them from.

As JSS has pointed out, if those shadows are as they appear in that picture then where on earth is the sun?

[Tom Bishop]

NASA is not funding the Côte d’Azur Observatory, France is.

The laser range finding done on the Russian lunar explorer didn't involve NASA.

You can find projects that measure the moons distance done without any funding by NASA and not controlled by them.  NASA would have to have quite a strong grip on these other observatories to force them to lie about their results for decades. What is their leverage?

If we have to throw out any data by anyone who has ever had any contact with NASA or it's data, that covers literally every observatory.

NASA is involved in this technology and software. Here France and NASA are working on a laser ranger in South Africa. Why shouldn't we believe that NASA worked with France on their laser ranger?

https://cddis.nasa.gov/lw18/docs/papers/Session13/13-05-04-Combrinck.pdf

The development of a Lunar and Satellite Laser Ranger at the Hartebeesthoek Radio Astronomy Observatory, South Africa, in collaboration with the Observatoire de la Côte d'Azur (France) and NASA(GSFC) is progressing well.

Those shadows are parallel.

We have been through this in discussions about crepuscular rays. Lines which are parallel in reality can appear not to be depending on the angle you are looking at them from.

As JSS has pointed out, if those shadows are as they appear in that picture then where on earth is the sun?

Read the rest of the thread. The shadows can appear non-parallel because of perspective and terrain effects.

NASA hired some people to write a book to try to debunk the hoax claims, which was turned into a website called Clavius. They claim it's a combination of terrain and perspective which can cause shadows to converge.

http://www.clavius.org/a11rear.html

Fig. 2 - Converging shadows of objects lit by the sun. A combination of terrain and perspective produces shadows in the upper right of the image that appear to lie almost at right angles to the shadow of the photographer.

[GreatATuin]

Anyway, the ILRS is only about twenty years old (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00190-019-01241-1): LLR was performed at the Grasse observatory and other non-NASA sites well before that.

[AATW]

Read the thread. The shadows can appear non-parallel because of perspectics and terrain effects.

Yes, I saw that. And correct. Although that looks pretty flat so I’m pretty sure it’s perspective in your image.

I’m not sure what point you are making here to be honest. One of the pieces of “evidence” moan hoaxers use is that non parallel shadows  show multiple light sources. Incorrect, as you would say and as your image proves. Perspective and terrain are factors in how shadows appear.

[Tom Bishop]

I’m not sure what point you are making here to be honest. One of the pieces of “evidence” moan hoaxers use is that non parallel shadows  show multiple light sources. Incorrect, as you would say and as your image proves. Perspective and terrain are factors in how shadows appear.

The video in the OP says that parallel shadows proves that the Moon landing happened.

[AATW]

The video in the OP says that parallel shadows proves that the Moon landing happened.

I see. Fair enough.
I think I’d agree that the shadows in the footage and pictures from the moon landings aren’t particularly strong evidence either way.
But they are often used erroneously as evidence of a hoax.

[JSS]

NASA is not funding the Côte d’Azur Observatory, France is.

The laser range finding done on the Russian lunar explorer didn't involve NASA.

You can find projects that measure the moons distance done without any funding by NASA and not controlled by them.  NASA would have to have quite a strong grip on these other observatories to force them to lie about their results for decades. What is their leverage?

If we have to throw out any data by anyone who has ever had any contact with NASA or it's data, that covers literally every observatory.

NASA is involved in this technology and software. Here France and NASA are working on a laser ranger in South Africa. Why shouldn't we believe that NASA worked with France on their laser ranger?

The claim you have made is that NASA's range finding results are "a scam" and that these other agencies are all somehow under NASA's control.

Pointing out NASA is "involved" somehow is a far cry from showing NASA has total and complete control over France's observatories and can dictate their results and force them to lie about the distance to the Moon.

How is this control enforced?  It's not money, we know that NASA didn't build that observatory and isn't paying for it's operation now.

If an agency want's to perform measurements on an object NASA placed, why wouldn't they ask NASA for information?  It's certainly not proof of a conspiracy. NASA has a long history in spaceflight and is the world leading expert in much of it, it stands to reason people are going to ask them for help.

Multiple reflectors have been placed by multiple countries, and measured by other countries... that is a lot of evidence that they are real, unless NASA somehow can control all of them for nearly 50 years.

[Tom Bishop]

The claim you have made is that NASA's range finding results are "a scam" and that these other agencies are all somehow under NASA's control.

Pointing out NASA is "involved" somehow is a far cry from showing NASA has total and complete control over France's observatories and can dictate their results and force them to lie about the distance to the Moon.

How is this control enforced?  It's not money, we know that NASA didn't build that observatory and isn't paying for it's operation now.

NASA does fund international projects.

And the analysis is done in software. Working with another country on this could just mean NASA gave them the software and and consulted on the physical hardware.

[JSS]

The claim you have made is that NASA's range finding results are "a scam" and that these other agencies are all somehow under NASA's control.

Pointing out NASA is "involved" somehow is a far cry from showing NASA has total and complete control over France's observatories and can dictate their results and force them to lie about the distance to the Moon.

How is this control enforced?  It's not money, we know that NASA didn't build that observatory and isn't paying for it's operation now.

NASA does fund international projects.

And the analysis is done in software. Working with another country on this could just mean NASA gave them the software and and consulted on the physical hardware.

How does NASA force France's observatories to lie and return false information on the distance to the Moon using software and consultations, assuming either happen at all?

The Grasse Station experiments look quote independent to me.  I see no method NASA could be using to force them to lie to the world about their findings. How would they do that and continue to cover it up after so long?