6
Am I the only one who thinks the moon landing fakes still have some decent points?
I was talking to this older guy at the diner in Cleveland last month, and he pulled out a stack of old photos from the Apollo missions. He pointed out how the shadows in the shots don't line up right, like multiple light sources instead of just the sun. I told him it's usually explained by uneven ground or camera angles, but he just laughed and said 'you believe what they printed in the textbooks.' That interaction stuck with me because he wasn't shouting or being rude, he just calmly showed his evidence and let me sit with it. I've looked up the shadow thing since then and found some NASA explanations that sort of make sense, but not perfectly. Makes you wonder if there's more to those old photos than we give credit for. Has anyone else run into someone who laid out a solid case without getting all crazy about it?
2 comments
Log in to join the discussion
Log In2 Comments
joseph45519d ago
Man @milac37 your buddy Dave sounds like he's about one more confusing shadow photo away from building a homemade rocket to check for himself. At least the diner guy was nice about it, most people just skip straight to yelling.
8
milac3719d ago
...and then my friend Dave, who's an engineer and not the type to fall for anything, spent a whole weekend looking into it after his brother-in-law showed him the same shadow photos. He called me all worked up about how the landing module's legs should have created much longer shadows based on where the sun was supposed to be, and he couldn't get the numbers to work out right in his own modeling software. He ended up emailing some professor at Case Western who politely told him the lunar surface reflects light in complex ways, but Dave still says the professor's answer felt like a hand-wave. It's the calm, collected presentations that stick with you, even if you don't end up agreeing.
6