Apollo 11, A Night to Remember

[tellingbone]

Desperately need a copy of the above. I believe it was broadcast on BBC Four in February 2006.



If anyone can help I'd be really grateful. I have a trade list available.

[Moor Larkin]

Definitely watched it......... but did I video it? Probably not. But I will check. I have a couple of Apollo videos........... I've got the one where they deal with some of the conspracy theories that they never did land on the moon but did it all in a studio.........



Capricorn 1 has a lot to answer for.........

[christoph404]

Apparently the makers of "Capricorn One" had full support and technical advice from NASA!....mmmm, how suspicious.. I would recommend "In The Shadow of The Moon" which is in the cinemas at the moment, a documentary using seldom and never before seen footage from the Apollo missions.I went to see it on the basis of the very good reviews it received, and it is indeed very good,and it was listed as a UK film for its appearance at the Sundance Film festival, directed and produced by Brit filmaker Dave Sington

[Steve Crook]

name='Moor Larkin']Definitely watched it......... but did I video it? Probably not. But I will check. I have a couple of Apollo videos........... I've got the one where they deal with some of the conspracy theories that they never did land on the moon but did it all in a studio.........



Capricorn 1 has a lot to answer for.........

See refutation of this and other similar nonsense



Steve

[christoph404]

what rankles with me about so called "experts" on photography from established bodies such as The Royal Photographic Society etc who are supporting the "fake" theory by pointing to so called anomolies in the moon photos, is that they are simply displaying the fact that they know very little if anything about the basic principles of photography, of lighting and reflection etc. Silly people!

[Steve Crook]

name='christoph404']what rankles with me about so called "experts" on photography from established bodies such as The Royal Photographic Society etc who are supporting the "fake" theory by pointing to so called anomolies in the moon photos, is that they are simply displaying the fact that they know very little if anything about the basic principles of photography, of lighting and reflection etc. Silly people!

If you want another puzzle, try to figure out the shadows of the arrows on this image



The shadows are all over the place, pointing in all sorts of different directions. Did they have more than one source of light? No, they can't have done. Each arrow only has one shadow.



Steve

[Moor Larkin]

Being a boy of a certain age I know that it would have been easier to land on the moon than to have pretended to land on the moon.......



It is a shame that generations since are confused and made to think mankind is less capable than it actually is, by these moving shadows of doubt.



God knows what poor old Neil, Buzz, John and all the others make of it......

[Steve Crook]

name='Moor Larkin']Being a boy of a certain age I know that it would have been easier to land on the moon than to have pretended to land on the moon.......



It is a shame that generations since are confused and made to think mankind is less capable than it actually is, by these moving shadows of doubt.



God knows what poor old Neil, Buzz, John and all the others make of it......

They have a sense of humour (or even "humor")

And they did it all guided by a computer that wasn't as powerful as the one in your mobile phone!



Steve

[Moor Larkin]

name='Steve Crook'] guided by a computer that wasn't as powerful as the one in your mobile phone!

What mobile phone?



shouting at the moon....

[christoph404]

name='Steve Crook']If you want another puzzle, try to figure out the shadows of the arrows on this image



The shadows are all over the place, pointing in all sorts of different directions. Did they have more than one source of light? No, they can't have done. Each arrow only has one shadow.



Steve

....I think those shadows have been painted on by a set designer with very little knowledge of the basic principals of photography, lighting and reflection etc...

[tellingbone]

All the so-called moon landing fakes can easily be countered so I don't even bother wasting time thinking about them.



I still need a copy of the recording so can we get back on topic now please!



Ta muchly!

[christoph404]

name='tellingbone']All the so-called moon landing fakes can easily be countered so I don't even bother wasting time thinking about them.



I still need a copy of the recording so can we get back on topic now please!



Ta muchly!

okay......I don't have a copy...sorry can't help you!.... I guess thats the end of that interesting chat about the moon landings!.......

[Steve Crook]

name='christoph404']....I think those shadows have been painted on by a set designer with very little knowledge of the basic principals of photography, lighting and reflection etc...

No. They are all real shadows. You see the last arrow hit the centre of the target and the shadow of that one suddenly appears amongst the rest of them.



But they do show how easy it is to be fooled by such things.

Any suggestions as to how they appear like that?



Steve

[christoph404]

Not at all sure why the shadows of the arrows should be going in different directions.You would need a fairly focussed spotlight rather than a soft light to achieve those distinctive shadows. The only thing I can think of is perhaps the target and arrows are lit by several little spot lights almost on top and slightly to the side of the arrows but that would be tricky to achieve and only have one shadow per arrow. It could be a mulitiple exposure of one arrow at a time with the light source moved slightly between exposures.

[christoph404]

Just realised that the reason the shadows are in different directions is because the arrows themselves are at different angles! If you shone a spotlight from the right and slightly above at arrows in the target which were all parrallel and at the same angle then the shadows would possibly be going in the same direction but the arrows are in a multitude of angles hence the shadows will fall in different directions. Its a similar theory to the piture posted by Moor of the shadows of the moon rocks going in different directions! Got me confused for a while though!................ and yes it is easy to be fooled by such things!

[Steve Crook]

name='christoph404']Just realised that the reason the shadows are in different directions is because the arrows themselves are at different angles! If you shone a spotlight from the right and slightly above at arrows in the target which were all parrallel and at the same angle then the shadows would possibly be going in the same direction but the arrows are in a multitude of angles hence the shadows will fall in different directions. Its a similar theory to the piture posted by Moor of the shadows of the moon rocks going in different directions! Got me confused for a while though!................ and yes it is easy to be fooled by such things!

That's it. Well done. They're not all exactly perpendicular to the target



To demonstrate it, take a pen or pencil. Hold it with a finger on it so that it's perpendicular to the paper or whatever it's resting on.



But then move it with your finger so that the angle to the paper changes and you'll see how little it has to have its angle changed to change the angle of the shadow quite dramatically.



Advanced students can do it with two or more pencils



Steve

[Moor Larkin]

name='tellingbone'] I still need a copy of the recording

I did video it. I was pretty sure I had, but I didn't want to raise your hopes too much in case I hadn't. PM me and we can arrange something.