/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11193845
the very skinny shadow is hidden behind the small piles of dirt near the base of the flag.

>>11193850

Look at the angle and direction of the rest of the shadows. And where is the flags shadow?

>>11193860
on the bumpy ground somewhere. who gives a shit?
let's say you can't find the shadow no matter how hard you look. what does this prove? nothing at all.

>>11193940

If you understand anything about light and shadows, you quickly realize, the entire thing is manufactured.

The moon landing never happened.

>>11193948
How is the apparent lack of a shadow a sign that the moon landings were faked? Wouldn't there be a shadow in either case since the faked landings would have to have a flag on the set already?

This apparent inconsistency also doesn't take into account the mountain of evidence for the moon landings being real. Such as the technical documents that have been publicly available for decades with no issue spotted with them. Such as the thousands of employees who kept their mouth shut for years despite the fact that they would be famous for uncovering this supposed conspiracy. Such as the Soviets who were tracking Apollo since the beginning and would have all the reason in the world to expose the hoax for their benefit.

>>11193948
If you understand anything about light and shadows, you will know that shadows do not magically disappear when you use studio lighting.

>>11193845
I don't see a problem. Light falls almost edge on the flag. The thin pole's shadow is mostly hidden by the sand.

Also, there had to be a second shooter.

>>11193948

>>11193974

The light clearly falls on the flag and there is no contrasting shadow, especially when compared to the shadows of the "asstronot" and the lander. Period.

>>11193962

Lack of shadows is an consistency in lighting. Meaning; there is more then one source of light. The mountain of evidence was destroy and also "lost" for decades, recently "rediscovered" and sold at "private auction". Your insults went into the garbage along with your weak implications and whatever semblance of dignity you had left.

Do you actually get paid to be this ignorant or do you do it for free? Holy shit.

>>11194095
>Meaning; there is more then one source of light
how can that be possible if every other object casts one shadow.
If you understand anything about light and shadows, you will know that this you aren't making any fucking sense.

>>11194107

If there is more then one source of light, you would know what that means. That is, if you are not mentally retarded.

Gif related. If that looks real and you cant still haven't seen the camera panning and following it exactly, or why that would be. Stop posting and consider suicide.

>>11194095
>Lack of shadows is an consistency in lighting. Meaning; there is more then one source of light.
Two or more light sources don't make shadows disappear.

>The mountain of evidence was destroy and also "lost" for decades, recently "rediscovered" and sold at "private auction".
No. The technical documents are still around and publicly available. And again, no issues with them have been found for the decades that they have been around.

>Your insults went into the garbage along with your weak implications and whatever semblance of dignity you had left.
I made no such insults, and even if I did then it still doesn't invalidate my arguments.

Interesting that you avoided the Soviets, or actually calling upon any technical know-how to try to falsify the moon landings. Instead you opted to nitpick a single photo out of thousands while claiming that somehow this proves a conspiracy with no attempt to actually connect this apparent evidence to a conspiracy.

>>11194123
Then prove that there were two sources of light beyond just one odd looking photo.

>Gif related. If that looks real and you cant still haven't seen the camera panning and following it exactly, or why that would be. Stop posting and consider suicide.
So, if there's a perceived insult to you, then every argument someone makes against your case is invalid somehow? Yet, you can just tell others to kill themselves for daring to go against you just fine? Double standard much?

Anyways, the camera was on a mount that could be remotely controlled from Earth. Since the launch was a pre-planed event and the signal delay to the moon was well known, its not hard to imagine it being possible to track the ascent module as it leaves the lunar surface.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_TV_camera#RCA_J-series_ground-commanded_television_assembly_(GCTA)

How about you actually try to back up your claims rather than make further accusations?

So what’s your explanation, Einstein?

>>11194126

>>Exactly. Why isn't there a shadow?
>>Citation is required. All available evidence is heavily contested and always has been.
>>Yes you did, albeit passive aggressive and providing you are the same individual. I wasn't discussing the soviets and technical know how was limited to rockets exploding prior to leaving the atmosphere until we suddenly accomplished the moon landing, repeatedly, without fail.

>>11194142

>>Odd looking photo.
You're catching on.

>>Perceived insult.
You were insulting. If you had an valid argument, this would not be required. Besides that, you offered no refutation worth consideration. Yes, it invalidates the consideration of your opinion when you contribute nothing more then a teenagers equivalent of an insult without any valuable input.

>>Remote control.
Consider the delay, the relevance of this action, the actual visuals of this display, and the fact it could not capture star light in the background, no display of an actual flare from the engines requiring fuel to thrust it into the atmosphere, and so much more. You've still ignored every other counter point and indication made about the validity of this one photo, which is an amateur attempt to circumvent the main question of this thread.

Get your shit together. Jesus christ.

>>11194145

I'm here to hear your explanation, not provide you with one. I'm done hold you'lls hands on this board. I've given more then enough answers to questions bigger then life here. I want to see what any of you, if any, have to offer.

>>11194095
>The mountain of evidence was destroy and also "lost" for decades, recently "rediscovered" and sold at "private auction".

Wrong. Some telemetry for one mission was overwritten.

>>11194204
>Consider the delay
the engineers who designed it assuredly did. this is a very simple thing to design for.
>the actual visuals of this display
what about them
>the fact it could not capture star light in the background
this is exactly what we'd expect. I'd be extremely suspicious if there WERE stars in the background. good thing there isn't.
>no display of an actual flare from the engines requiring fuel to thrust it into the atmosphere, and so much more
there is no atmosphere on the moon. also, did you not see the fucking explosion at the begining of the gif that propels it upward

>>11194123
>If that looks real and you cant still haven't seen the camera panning and following it exactly, or why that would be.

They set up the camera on the rover to do that.

>>11194204
>Consider the delay

....Delay?
The Moon is 1.3 light seconds away.

> and the fact it could not capture star light in the background

Oh no, a 1960’s camera didn’t record stars IN THE DAYTIME

>>11194204
>I'm here to hear your explanation
Okay. My explanation is >>11193850

>>11193974
>>11193845
The flag's shadow isn't there because the angle is too sharp. You can only see the shadow of the pole.

>>11194256
hehe, op actually btfo

>>11194256
Oh shit there it is,

OP destroyed

>>11194259
>>11194256
Yeah, and here's the best angle I can detect for the light. This angle comes from the shadow on the backpack from the guy's shoulder. A tiny portion of the flag might be in frame in that pole shadow.

>>11194224

>>Destroyed. By "accident".

>>11194225
>>11194226
>>11194232

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/20/apollo-11-moon-landing-tapes-sell-at-sothebys-for-1point8-million.html

https://www.foxnews.com/science/apollo-11-original-recordings-sold-at-auction

https://techcrunch.com/2019/07/22/original-apollo-11-landing-videotapes-sell-for-1-8m/

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/02/us/nasa-intern-moon-landing-footage-sothebys-auction-trnd/index.html

What am I missing?

Lets completely forget and fuck down the idea of it having historical relevance. Why would this be allowed to take place.

One additional bread crumb, ill give to you on a silver platter; There are no stars in the film or pictures for a simple reason. It could not be accurately replication, precisely, without actually being present on the moon. However. It would be possible, especially with future technology to trace the footage back to see if it measured up to where the astronauts were at the time of the filming, pictures, and landing.

>>11194271
>>>Destroyed. By "accident".

Yes. It’s not particularly important so why that’s remarkable to you, I don’t know.we have the telemetry data for the other missions.

> There are no stars in the film or pictures for a simple reason.

Because you can’t see stars in the daytime you fucking mongoloid.

>>11194277

>>Not particularly important.

Greatest accomplishment of mankind.

>>Daytime.

On the moon where every star in the galaxy is visible.

>>11194287
>Greatest accomplishment of mankind.

Telemetry data for one of several greatest accomplishments of mankind. Oooooo

It’d be nice if it wasn’t lost, but it is.

> On the moon where every star in the galaxy is visible.

Literally zero stars are visible from the moon during daytime. Have you ever tried to use your phone during broad daylight, and are you aware of how much dimmer stars are than a phone right in front of you?

>>11194271
>>11194277
>>11194287
>>11194297
>no stars
Dynamic range is a real bitch for photos and video.

>>11193845
OP? Take a look
>>11194256

>>11194095
>more than one light source means randomly shadows disappear but work for one light source
Do faggot like you ever seen stuff like football field at night or similar?

>>11193845
OP a massive brainlet

>>11194204
>thrust it into the atmosphere
On moon