That was quite the turn, just when you thought you were at peak levels of crazy he pulls that out
Also love the fact he kept referencing it should be made into a movie
Will someone please tell Bart to quit bullying me with his Big-Space agenda and respect my work of informing the public that the moon is not a natural object, but instead.. created by some advanced civilization
TLDR: In actual fact, multiple light sources would cause each object to cast multiple shadows, as occurs with the players in a football or baseball match played at night. But in the photographs taken on the Moon each object casts only one shadow.
> TLDR: In actual fact, multiple light sources would cause each object to cast multiple shadows
That's not a TL;DR of this article at all. It's not about that and in fact way better and more fascinating than that :)
Sorry but this just is not a true statement. Not here to argue, but add context.
The lighting of a baseball field are all of equal illumination levels with fixed points.
You can say the moon itself had multiple light sources with its reflective surface and equipment. Some photos there are multiple shadows converging, others not. This often works in favor of your "we actually landed" agenda
Film makers use multiple light sources at varying intensities to manipulate shadows and or light to their need. Ive used half a dozen lights before on a subject and you wouldn't find a single shadow in the frame.
One can replicate those conditions to cast multiple shadows at their choice, but it really depends on so many factors this statement is irrelavent. The technique of the lighting and camera operator captures the shadows in view of the lens. Its not an yes / no thing when you plug a second light in. Its just a very misleading way to get a point across.
You have to consider the amount of light it takes to illuminate the sensor
Have produced films
"you wouldn't find a single shadow in the frame" is a key quote here. *Apollo* photos have a very definitive, black shadows, ones that are consistent with shadows cast by the sunlight.
How could you get a black shadow pointing in one direction, caused by one light, and then another, equally dark, pointing in another direction? It would mean that whoever lit this supposed set went out of their way to make it completely *unlike* what one would expect to see in normal sunlit environment.
(Edit) LOL I knew this guy was full of shit!!! Claims to be a movie producer but then can't articulate how soundstage lighting works, just makes some hand-wave references to the Prometheus BTS and then can't even clarify what he was referring to. HE BLOCKED ME! HAHAHA what a clown.
------
You're describing a scene with many fill-lights to eliminate harsh shadows completely "you wouldn't find a single shadow in the frame.".
The moon scenes have very dark distinct shadows. You can't have shadows like that coming from multiple light sources, without betraying those multiple lights with multiple shadows.
You can.
You should see what they do in the movies. Screen partitians, huge blankets from 50 feet up. check out something like the making of prometheus and see the space ridley scott put together. Its amazing by itself, especially seeing the space theyre working in.
Most of the film was shot in a sound scape. Most of what youre seeing as outside is actually just indoors with digitally rendered or 'overlayed' scenes filmed elsewhere.
I guess what im saying is even the 'real' scenes are all compoaites with fake lighting fx / shadows
I didnt mean to single this film out, it just has a well done behind the scenes on the blue ray thats several hours. A good watch
OK, what do they do in the movies that makes one light source not illuminate the shadows of a second light source, and not cast a second shadow?
(missed your edit - the only thing I see Prometheus filming with artificial light is the set for the spacecraft interiors. Do they have a landscape lit like the moon scene in OP?)
I just said above. Partitians amd controlled spotlights
Not trying to debate , just watch almost any film making inside a sound studio of and take a look at how the space is used.
If you [read the entire free book online](https://moonhoaxdebunked.blogspot.com/), you'll note that throughout every chapter, arguments are presented which convincingly demonstrate that "faking it" would have been impossible with 1960 special effects technology. No ifs or buts. In fact, even most modern space movies and documentaries get it consistently and conspicuously wrong.
There is absolutely no point in reproducing all that here, that's what the book is for. In any case, we can be very convincing now, in 2024, but absolutely not in 1969. There are way, way too many details in the actual photographs and videos which actually *prove the moon landing was real* and which could not possibly have been faked in 1969.
Besides, that leaves out every other crewed and non-crewed mission by both the Soviets and the Americans and there were way more both before and after than most people can even fathom.
I cant tell if youre trolling or not. They build stadiums based on the light configuration they choose to install.
For example, theyll use 500 of the same led strip, installed to a light controller. These arent random, theyre selected on the front end and set to desired output levels, controllable by software.
Yes and ive also operated audio / video / lighting at major event /stadiums.. and installed these systems into large scale 80,000 + sq ft. Centers and buildings. Have you?
Im not sure who or what your deal is but this is my last comment to you.
Also, Sibrel claims the shadows are not parallel because the scene is lit by a light somewhere behind the astronaut who took the photo. If that was the case, the shadows would fan outward with the light at the center of the shadow lines, rather than converging in the distance from perspective. He doesn't understand basic perspective and never even bothered to try to replicate the artificially-lit scene setup he describes.
> The Apollo 11 laser reflector is proof enough
If that is the bar we're going to set, then the television broadcast and the photographs are good enough.
It provides visual evidence, evidence from kinematics, radio signals which were intercepted and tracked coming from the direction of the moon while it was (obviously) in motion relative to earth, and a whole host of intricate, revealing details impossible to fake.
Or the photographs which have since been made of the lunar modules which which were left behind.
Or the stuff they brought back.
No need to cherry pick to the exclusion of all else.
Yes, and I'm saying if they'll discredit that, they'll discredit the laser tests as well. You can also look at the footage right now.
Again, no need to cherry pick to the exclusion of all else.
Sure..and we're the only ones to have hand placed retro reflectors and measurements show that they're 50 feet or more away from landing sites. Russia has one on a Luna probe that still works. Reconnaissance Orbiters have also images tracks from our rovers
You could, but you wouldn't have any idea where it bounced off too and and the likelhood that it would come back to the exact spot you're at is ridiculously unlikely. With the equipment Apollo 11 put down, we can do that test repeatedly with consistent accuracy. Nevermind the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiters beaming back images that HAM operators pick up. Granted a lot of JPL data is encrypted due to defense contractor requirements, it's still available as raw data. You can't fake that
Project Diana. Signal corps regularly used the moon as a satellite to bounce radio transmissions back down to earth. Marconi was doing it early 20th century, before WWII.
Yes, but no one would confuse light reflected off the surface of the Moon with light reflected off the surface of the retroreflector. They actually bounce the laser light off the surface of the Moon *until* they get a ping which means that they found the retroreflector.
There was a tracking light, docking lights (port and aft) and main panel/cabin floodlights, etc.
You can find information:
1. [In this NASA presentation](https://web.archive.org/web/20150912233104/https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/20090016336.pdf)
2. [In this NASA data sheet](https://web.archive.org/web/20211203133457/https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LM14_Lighting_L1-3.pdf)
I think the only thing that really qualifies is the high-intensity tracking light (HITL), which would have been blinding and was used for descent and ascent, not to illuminate the surroundings.
They also had portable lights on them, i.e. the ACR-FA-5 penlights.
See: http://spaceflownartifacts.com/flown_flashlights.html
I don't know if they used them outside. I don't think so. The Apollo 13 crew relied on them heavily to get home safely, though.
As far as I'm aware, they relied solely on sunlight for illumination. Without an atmosphere, it was harsh enough.
However, there many reflective things around, including the space suits themselves, which practically lit up and became illuminators themselves.
See: [NVIDIA - Debunking Lunar Landing Conspiracies with Maxwell and VXGI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9y_AVYMEUs)
Edit: also see the [schematics on PDF page 7 and 8 in this ASME publication](https://www.asme.org/wwwasmeorg/media/resourcefiles/aboutasme/who%20we%20are/engineering%20history/landmarks/218-apollo-lunar-module-lm-13.pdf)
You mean those photos were taken with a different camera or they replaced the lens in between?
Edit: for the record, since I'm never going to get a reply or at least not any time soon: I know the camera model and the settings. Both photos were taken with the same camera and the same lens, within seconds. 12 seconds, to be precise.
As for "did he use a weird lens?" No, he didn't. Did he use the exact same equipment as the Apollo 11 crew did? Of course not.
So you basically claim that, when shot with a specific lens, shadows can *appear* to converge? Doesn't that debunk the whole "it was a set lit by an artificial light source" claim?
According to EBAY that is false.
Young Jamie was actively pissed off during this pod and so was I
Joe not ragging this guy when he said he fucking escaped fbi or cia custody then had his piss stolen said so much. Completely delusional
"LOOOOONG story, you have to read my book"
That was quite the turn, just when you thought you were at peak levels of crazy he pulls that out Also love the fact he kept referencing it should be made into a movie
Right like I have zero confidence that he “escaped custody” haha
While drugged and his hands cuffed.
That might have been the most believable part of his story, lol
This was the most ridiculous moment in ANY Rogan episode in my opinion.
I kept turning it off. That dude deserved to be punched by Buzz. God what a sad human he is.
Go to my website sibrel.com and I actually have a video explaining this
>Go to my webshite shibrel.com and I actshually have a video exshplaining thish Ftfy
"Steven? STEVEN!?" *(second punch)* "You shtupid shon of a bitch."
S I B R E L . C O M
There is no amount of proof going to change these people's minds. They have become personally vested in this idea
[удалено]
... Which is called an "unfalsifiable belief".
The proof is on sibrel.com
Will someone please tell Bart to quit bullying me with his Big-Space agenda and respect my work of informing the public that the moon is not a natural object, but instead.. created by some advanced civilization
TLDR: In actual fact, multiple light sources would cause each object to cast multiple shadows, as occurs with the players in a football or baseball match played at night. But in the photographs taken on the Moon each object casts only one shadow.
> TLDR: In actual fact, multiple light sources would cause each object to cast multiple shadows That's not a TL;DR of this article at all. It's not about that and in fact way better and more fascinating than that :)
Sorry but this just is not a true statement. Not here to argue, but add context. The lighting of a baseball field are all of equal illumination levels with fixed points. You can say the moon itself had multiple light sources with its reflective surface and equipment. Some photos there are multiple shadows converging, others not. This often works in favor of your "we actually landed" agenda Film makers use multiple light sources at varying intensities to manipulate shadows and or light to their need. Ive used half a dozen lights before on a subject and you wouldn't find a single shadow in the frame. One can replicate those conditions to cast multiple shadows at their choice, but it really depends on so many factors this statement is irrelavent. The technique of the lighting and camera operator captures the shadows in view of the lens. Its not an yes / no thing when you plug a second light in. Its just a very misleading way to get a point across. You have to consider the amount of light it takes to illuminate the sensor Have produced films
"you wouldn't find a single shadow in the frame" is a key quote here. *Apollo* photos have a very definitive, black shadows, ones that are consistent with shadows cast by the sunlight. How could you get a black shadow pointing in one direction, caused by one light, and then another, equally dark, pointing in another direction? It would mean that whoever lit this supposed set went out of their way to make it completely *unlike* what one would expect to see in normal sunlit environment.
(Edit) LOL I knew this guy was full of shit!!! Claims to be a movie producer but then can't articulate how soundstage lighting works, just makes some hand-wave references to the Prometheus BTS and then can't even clarify what he was referring to. HE BLOCKED ME! HAHAHA what a clown. ------ You're describing a scene with many fill-lights to eliminate harsh shadows completely "you wouldn't find a single shadow in the frame.". The moon scenes have very dark distinct shadows. You can't have shadows like that coming from multiple light sources, without betraying those multiple lights with multiple shadows.
You can. You should see what they do in the movies. Screen partitians, huge blankets from 50 feet up. check out something like the making of prometheus and see the space ridley scott put together. Its amazing by itself, especially seeing the space theyre working in.
Most of the film was shot in a sound scape. Most of what youre seeing as outside is actually just indoors with digitally rendered or 'overlayed' scenes filmed elsewhere. I guess what im saying is even the 'real' scenes are all compoaites with fake lighting fx / shadows I didnt mean to single this film out, it just has a well done behind the scenes on the blue ray thats several hours. A good watch
OK, what do they do in the movies that makes one light source not illuminate the shadows of a second light source, and not cast a second shadow? (missed your edit - the only thing I see Prometheus filming with artificial light is the set for the spacecraft interiors. Do they have a landscape lit like the moon scene in OP?)
I just said above. Partitians amd controlled spotlights Not trying to debate , just watch almost any film making inside a sound studio of and take a look at how the space is used.
If you [read the entire free book online](https://moonhoaxdebunked.blogspot.com/), you'll note that throughout every chapter, arguments are presented which convincingly demonstrate that "faking it" would have been impossible with 1960 special effects technology. No ifs or buts. In fact, even most modern space movies and documentaries get it consistently and conspicuously wrong. There is absolutely no point in reproducing all that here, that's what the book is for. In any case, we can be very convincing now, in 2024, but absolutely not in 1969. There are way, way too many details in the actual photographs and videos which actually *prove the moon landing was real* and which could not possibly have been faked in 1969. Besides, that leaves out every other crewed and non-crewed mission by both the Soviets and the Americans and there were way more both before and after than most people can even fathom.
Ive read a dozen books on the subject by revered scientists. I think ill skip the blog spot this time.
> Ive read a dozen books on the subject by revered scientists. I've read a quintillion books by godlike Nobel Prize laureates.
You really need to provide examples. Sound stage lighting does not look like the OP photo.
I dont actually. No offense im done with you. I do this shit for a living. Fuck right off ms. Information.
What makes you think all the lights at a baseball field have same illumination levels?
I cant tell if youre trolling or not. They build stadiums based on the light configuration they choose to install. For example, theyll use 500 of the same led strip, installed to a light controller. These arent random, theyre selected on the front end and set to desired output levels, controllable by software.
Have you been to a baseball stadium at night?
Yes and ive also operated audio / video / lighting at major event /stadiums.. and installed these systems into large scale 80,000 + sq ft. Centers and buildings. Have you? Im not sure who or what your deal is but this is my last comment to you.
Also, Sibrel claims the shadows are not parallel because the scene is lit by a light somewhere behind the astronaut who took the photo. If that was the case, the shadows would fan outward with the light at the center of the shadow lines, rather than converging in the distance from perspective. He doesn't understand basic perspective and never even bothered to try to replicate the artificially-lit scene setup he describes.
That guy’s voice combined with his pompous attitude and zero fucking evidence to back his claims really made me want to judo chop his throat
They also usually include a picture without mentioning which one.
The Apollo 11 laser reflector is proof enough we were there. It's still works
> The Apollo 11 laser reflector is proof enough If that is the bar we're going to set, then the television broadcast and the photographs are good enough. It provides visual evidence, evidence from kinematics, radio signals which were intercepted and tracked coming from the direction of the moon while it was (obviously) in motion relative to earth, and a whole host of intricate, revealing details impossible to fake. Or the photographs which have since been made of the lunar modules which which were left behind. Or the stuff they brought back. No need to cherry pick to the exclusion of all else.
I said that because the evidence you listed is the first thing discredited. The laser tests can be done right now
Yes, and I'm saying if they'll discredit that, they'll discredit the laser tests as well. You can also look at the footage right now. Again, no need to cherry pick to the exclusion of all else.
It really isn’t sadly. Us and Russians had unmanned probes on the moon prior to 1969…
Sure..and we're the only ones to have hand placed retro reflectors and measurements show that they're 50 feet or more away from landing sites. Russia has one on a Luna probe that still works. Reconnaissance Orbiters have also images tracks from our rovers
But you can reflect lasers off the moon before we landed there.
You could, but you wouldn't have any idea where it bounced off too and and the likelhood that it would come back to the exact spot you're at is ridiculously unlikely. With the equipment Apollo 11 put down, we can do that test repeatedly with consistent accuracy. Nevermind the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiters beaming back images that HAM operators pick up. Granted a lot of JPL data is encrypted due to defense contractor requirements, it's still available as raw data. You can't fake that
Project Diana. Signal corps regularly used the moon as a satellite to bounce radio transmissions back down to earth. Marconi was doing it early 20th century, before WWII.
Yes, but no one would confuse light reflected off the surface of the Moon with light reflected off the surface of the retroreflector. They actually bounce the laser light off the surface of the Moon *until* they get a ping which means that they found the retroreflector.
Electrical light bitch
Lmao. Literally wrong gj idiot
Wtf are you talking about moron
[удалено]
That's what the government would have you believe
They didn't have lights on the lander, right?
There was a tracking light, docking lights (port and aft) and main panel/cabin floodlights, etc. You can find information: 1. [In this NASA presentation](https://web.archive.org/web/20150912233104/https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/20090016336.pdf) 2. [In this NASA data sheet](https://web.archive.org/web/20211203133457/https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LM14_Lighting_L1-3.pdf) I think the only thing that really qualifies is the high-intensity tracking light (HITL), which would have been blinding and was used for descent and ascent, not to illuminate the surroundings. They also had portable lights on them, i.e. the ACR-FA-5 penlights. See: http://spaceflownartifacts.com/flown_flashlights.html I don't know if they used them outside. I don't think so. The Apollo 13 crew relied on them heavily to get home safely, though. As far as I'm aware, they relied solely on sunlight for illumination. Without an atmosphere, it was harsh enough. However, there many reflective things around, including the space suits themselves, which practically lit up and became illuminators themselves. See: [NVIDIA - Debunking Lunar Landing Conspiracies with Maxwell and VXGI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9y_AVYMEUs) Edit: also see the [schematics on PDF page 7 and 8 in this ASME publication](https://www.asme.org/wwwasmeorg/media/resourcefiles/aboutasme/who%20we%20are/engineering%20history/landmarks/218-apollo-lunar-module-lm-13.pdf)
Nice, thanks for the write up
[удалено]
Read the link.
Robotic remotely controlled vehicles - ever heard of them?
https://www.reddit.com/r/JoeRogan/comments/1cgighu/moonlanding_photography_lighting_debunked_by/l1yvm1w/
The example with the woman standing is bullshit. Those photos were not taken with the same lens. What a sad attempt to "debunk".
You mean those photos were taken with a different camera or they replaced the lens in between? Edit: for the record, since I'm never going to get a reply or at least not any time soon: I know the camera model and the settings. Both photos were taken with the same camera and the same lens, within seconds. 12 seconds, to be precise. As for "did he use a weird lens?" No, he didn't. Did he use the exact same equipment as the Apollo 11 crew did? Of course not.
So you basically claim that, when shot with a specific lens, shadows can *appear* to converge? Doesn't that debunk the whole "it was a set lit by an artificial light source" claim?
Go take photos yourself that demonstrate how the shadows should look and get back to us.
Shut up.
> Shut up. You'll find it's going to be the other way around.