[ermintrude]

I'd like to see some refutation of the claims in this film (and not by the guy - physicist as I recall - in the film who just hand-waves say "well we know they went there and it can't possibly have been a hoax"): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo5w0pm24ic

[rquantz]

Why bother? People who believe that one of the most documented events in human history, in which 100s of thousands of people took part, was a hoax are not going to be convinced by refutation of the supposed "evidence" they bring forth.

[ermintrude]

Because if you watch that film and believe Apollo went to the moon, the only conclusion is that light has different properties on the moon compared to Earth.

I'd like to know what could explain, for example, their shadows lengthening significantly when they move a small distance as shown in the NASA footage better than "the astronauts were close to a large artificial light source" as they claim in the film that physics implies.

[rquantz]

I don't know the answer to that. But this is just another in a long line of theories about the shadows in the photos and videos from the lunar surface, all of which are based on ignorance of how photographs work and how three-dimensional space translates into two dimensional images. Every claim of the conspiracy theorists gets proven wrong and then they come up with something else. Sometimes, things they offer as proof that the landing was a fake are actually proof that they're real! They say that it was obviously a set because that hill is in the background of two photos that were supposedly taken miles apart. Well, that's because the "hill" is a mountain bigger than any mountain on Earth, and if you analyse the parallax effect on that mountain in the two images it is consistent with the distance between the two photos.

The point is that googling just about any claim from the conspiracy theorists will return results debunking those claims by experts in photography or other relevant fields, and if it doesn't, that's only because the claim is something new enough that the sisyphean debunkers, who undoubtedly have better things to do with their time given that they actually know what they're talking about, haven't gotten around to it yet.

You can point to some trivia or artifact of photography that you don't understand and cling to that as proof of the hoax, whereas I can point to rocks that came from the moon, or to the fact that ham radio operators were able to pick up the tv transmission from the moon by pointing their receivers at the moon, or the fact that some of the missions placed mirrors on the moon that various third parties have bounced light off of. My evidence beats your "evidence."

[ryanjshaw]

If you genuinely want an expert's take on these matters, this is a good place to go: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

Specifically w.r.t. photos: http://www.iangoddard.com/moon01.htm

There's also a book: http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Astronomy-Misconceptions-Revealed-...

[seanflyon]

That's a long video. I believe in hearing people out even when they sound preposterous, but I'm not going to look through a 2 hour video.