How do you feel when someone claims that we have never landed the moon?

Question

i have got an email from someone who says moon landing were fake and the flowwings are my proof:

1 - The shadows don't fall right in images taken on the Lunar surface, proving that there are are multiple light sources, like professional stage lighting using high-powered lamps. Since the Moon has only one light source, the Sun.


2 - The foreground of many images of the astronauts on the Moon are filled in with light, while the shadows remain absolutely black, again proving that there are multiple light sources.

3 - There are no stars in the background from pictures taken on the Moon.

what do you think?

Answer 1

I feel incredibly annoyed that such people spout such utter uneducated nonsense when it is so simple to find the answers.

1: The shadows DO fall right. The land is not flat, and perspective will make the shadows appear non-parallel. Such 'odd' shadows are commonplace on Earth if only people bother to look for them. It is a matter of common sense that parallel things very rarely look parallel, or does the person who wrote that e-mail think that railway lines really do get closer together as they go off into the distance?

There is also the very simple fact, overlooked by everyone who makes that claim, that multiple light sources produce multiple shadows!

2: The lunar surface is a very good reflector, bouncing light back preferentially in the direction it came. We can read by it here, 250,000 miles away! Someone lit from above and behind by the Sun would appear well lit from the front because the lunar surface has thrown light back at them. You can see that in the reflections in their visors. The rocks, on the other hand, are lower down and less reflective than the bright white spacesuit the astronaut wears.

3: Of course there are no stars. Stars are very faint compared to the sunlit lunar scenery. To properly capture a sunlit scene requires an exposure time that is just too short to capture stars. Leave the shutter open enough to capture the stars and the foreground becomes one big washed out blob. This is elementary photography. What is more, there are no stars in the background of any picture taken in space by any probe from any space agency of a correctly exposed sunlit object.

And finally, to lunar sarah, what a load of cobblers are you talking! It is physically IMPOSSIBLE to see the footprints or the flag or the landers using any telescope on Earth. They are too small and too far away.

Answer 2

I pity them for their ignorance. Those are three of the most common - and easily refuted - claims of a conspiracy.

1) Shadows aren't necessarily in straight lines on Earth, even though we only have one primary light source - the Sun. The Moon isn't perfectly flat, so shadows get distorted there just as they do here.
2) The astronauts were lit not only by the Sun, but by reflected sunlight from the lunar surface. The shadows along the surface are pitch black because this reflected sunlight can't reach them (the light would have to travel in a curved path).
3) This one really irritates me. The bright lunar surface necessitated the use of short exposures, which were far too short to record stars. This can be verified by setting a digital camera on daylight exposure and trying to take pictures of the night sky. You won't get any stars with a camera set to daylight exposure.

Not only can we refute the "evidence" of a conspiracy, but we can also conclusively prove that the landings were real. Consider:
1) Several missions left behind retroreflectors that professional astronomers have detected thousands of times.
2) Independent radio telescopes, when pointed at the Moon, detected the Apollo transmissions. If there hadn't been a ship there, they wouldn't have detected anything.
3) Geologists have carefully examined the Moon rocks, and they've concluded that the samples actually did originate on the Moon. Geologists would be able to identify if this wasn't the case.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. There's a mountain of evidence in favor of the landings, and absolutely none that suggests a conspiracy.

Answer 3

Dude - I love a good conspiracy more than anyone, still those points you mentioned don`t hold. I saw different arguments to yours, and sure- it sounds very strange, yet there is gravity on the moon- one eights or something of that of the earth so the **** still drops. It can`t be that cold on the moon to need so much lead- lead is like the worst for keeping warm there is. This crap will freeze you. So you mean the radiation- I heard that earth is surrounded by extremely deadly radiation belt. Still- why would all the scientists would bull **** at once that it doesn`t exist? To get some cash? First missions usually fail and yes- there were a whole bunch of successful moon missions. And yes- there are plenty of the interviews with the astronauts and some of them speak of seeing UFOs. You can`t see the stars because the ssurfaceis still very lit up by the sun- it`s like seeing the stars in the daylight. Flag is just reacting on the commotion- it probably takes 8 times the time on the moon. So far I prefer the argument about showing the finger to the Soviets. And yes- the area 51 is probably a **** secret military base , where they fly different things. To sum it all upp- yes some weird **** is going on! Watch zeitgeist movie and fight the power.

Answer 4

I do feel sad. NASA answered those remarks. I remember the following points.

1 - It would hold if the ground was perfectly flat. It's not. It could hold if the moon were not moving. It does.

2 - Never. Light in the foreground is much stronger than in the background. In order to avoid overexposure from the foreground, the background was neglected.

3 - Same reason as above. The sun is strong enough to hide stars during the day here on the earth. It also works on the moon.

I wonder why they refuse this idea. Men landed on the moon. It was a great achievement. History was made at that moment.

Answer 5

The tragic flaw in the "multiple light sources" argument that they fail to recognize is that if there are multiple light sources, then the objects will cast multiple shadows. There are no images with multiple shadows. The shadows aren't parallel because the ground is not flat.

As far as the 'strange' illuminations, the dark places are being lit by.... THE MOON. On Earth, the Moon can be quite bright at night. How bright do you think its surface is when you're standing right on it? Of course, this is reflected sunlight and not the Moon being luminous on its own, but that's where the light in the shadows is coming from.

And as far as the lack of stars, go take your most expensive camera outside, aim it at a night sky, leaving it on normal settings, and snap a shot, and see if you get any stars. You won't. (You may get some lens flares from your flash reflecting off of nearby objects, but you won't get stars). The stars are too dim for a camera to record, ESPECIALLY when it's set for bright lighting conditions.

Those are the responses to this 'proof.' And how do I feel when I keep hearing this? Exasperated - tired of answering this question over and over and over and over and over and over and over.......

Now as proof that we DID go - other countries than just the USA (and not all of them friendly to us) received the radio signals from the Apollo spacecraft. If the craft remained in Earth orbit during the staging of the landing, then all radio signals received from the craft would be obviously coming from near the Earth and not from the Moon.

The moon is relatively motionless in the sky - a single receiving station can slowly track it as it crosses the sky over several hours. A spacecraft in low Earth orbit crosses the sky in a matter of minutes - I think the Russians would have noticed if they'd had to track a fast-moving object across the sky, gone on TV and called 'BS' on us.

Neil Armstrong is the first human on the Moon. It's a fact.

Answer 6

Fustrated and annoyed at some peoples stubborn ignorance.
Most of the proof doesn't really make sense and isn't put forwards by experts but people who see thing's and mis-interpret them.
1. The sun is large and a full on this explains the shadows.
2+3.
The Camera is low contrast shoddy stuff with about a 10frame/s this explains why they look transparent some what and it doesn't pick up faint stars well.

Answer 7

I think it's a sad, sad reflection of modern society. Furthermore, the internet has had a big part to play in nurturing and fostering these wacky, completely unfounded ideas. Even worse are the 9/11 conspiracies that seem to have massive amounts of support on the web with films like "Loose Change".

Now I'm all for standing up to bad governments and fascists, but a lot of this conspiracy stuff is simply paranoia.

Answer 8

One or more of the moon missions left an array of retro prisms that return light to its origin. Scientists use this prism array to bounce lasers off the moon's surface to measure the exact distance from the earth to the moon. I would think that with a decent laser, you could see the reflected light with a telescope. Light would take a couple of seconds to reach the moon and back. I think someone needs to take the time to prove that we were there to these idiots to shut them up.

Answer 9

I feel like the asker doesn't really care if we landed on the Moon or not. If they cared, they could easily look up some of the massive amount of information out there and confirm the landings were real.

Answer 10

I'd tell you that people with moderately powered telescopes and cameras can view the moon's surface and see the footprints and other misc things left behind. If you don't believe me, schedule a night trip to the nearest observatory during a full moon and ask to see yourself.
I don't blame your skeptisism in photos, just because photos are so easily modified. However, I think seeing with your own eyes would prove it to you.
Also, I'm sure the lighting on the older pictures as a logical explanation. Such as the astronauts having additional light sources. Like from their landing pod or on their suits.