3 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

A quest for the truth is not a quest for mystery, in fact it is quite the opposite: the more one studies a topic, the less mysterious it becomes.

very unscientific – like all conspiracy theorists, you are looking for a static black and white solution to suit yourself – science is about scepticism. Again, look at my notes on the scientific method; it is covered quite clearly in there

8 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

Only inside your little cocoon is that true.

so how were they built? 

5 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

so how were they built? 

.....and you think that is the scientific method? You don't seem to understand how to ask a question and relate it to the discussion - again you are fixating on something that isn't even evidence  - it is HOW evidence is gathered and analysed that is important. THis is the mentality of a 12-year-old.

I spent a large part of my first and second degrees analysing photographs — how they’re made, how light behaves, how perspective distorts, and, crucially, how easily untrained viewers misread images. Which is why listening to conspiracy theorists “analyse” Apollo photos is like watching someone who’s never studied mechanics confidently diagnose a jet engine because “the noise sounds wrong.”
The problem isn’t that they’re asking questions. It’s that they don’t understand what they’re looking at, how photographs work, or how evidence is evaluated — and then they mistake that ignorance for insight.
Conspiracy theorists fixate on isolated visual details they don’t understand (shadows, brightness, dust, flags), strip them of context, and then ignore everything else: physics, geometry, photographic principles, independent verification, and the scientific method itself. That’s not scepticism — it’s cherry-picking wrapped in confidence.
Humans are notoriously bad at evaluating visual evidence. We are wired to trust what we see, even when we don’t understand it. A photograph feels authoritative, immediate, and true — which is exactly why it’s so often misused. Add to that the “truthiness” effect (if something looks clear and easy to process, we mistake that feeling for truth), confirmation bias (we favour images that fit what we already believe), and source confusion (we remember the image but forget where it came from), and you have the perfect recipe for self-deception.
Most laypeople also cling to the outdated idea that photos are objective records of reality “because a machine took them.” That hasn’t been true since the 19th century. Images have always been shaped by lens choice, exposure, angle, framing, environment, and intent — long before Photoshop or AI. The difference now is that image manipulation is ubiquitous, while media literacy is not.
So when someone waves a single Apollo photo around and declares “this proves it was faked,” what they’re really proving is this:
•    They don’t understand lighting in a vacuum
•    They don’t understand perspective on uneven terrain
•    They don’t understand how cameras render contrast without an atmosphere
•    They don’t understand cumulative evidence
•    And they don’t understand the difference between intuition and analysis
Science doesn’t hinge on one image, one study, or one person’s gut feeling. Apollo isn’t supported by photographs alone — it’s supported by physics, telemetry, rock samples analysed worldwide, retroreflectors still used today, orbital imagery from independent missions, and decades of peer-reviewed verification. If your entire argument collapses the moment broader evidence is considered, the problem isn’t the evidence.
What’s most frustrating isn’t the ignorance — everyone starts somewhere. It’s the overconfidence. The assumption that a few minutes of squinting at a JPEG outweighs the work of physicists, engineers, photographers, and researchers who actually know what they’re doing. That’s not critical thinking. It’s Dunning–Kruger with a Wi-Fi connection.
If you want to question Apollo photos properly, you need to do what science demands: understand the medium, learn the physics, test your assumptions, and be willing to abandon your conclusion when the evidence doesn’t support it.
If your conclusion never changes — no matter how much evidence appears — you’re not analysing photographs.
You’re just projecting your misunderstanding onto them.
  

Just now, kwilco said:

and you think that is the scientific method?

what do you mean?

as far as I know, modern scientists do not believe civilizations had the technology to build the pyramids so do not understand how they got there.

In fact, it's been hypothesized they weren't even built by humans, but by aliens. 

 

 

1 hour ago, save the frogs said:

as far as I know,

QED!

 

You don't even know they were faced!!

2 hours ago, kwilco said:

I spent a large part of my first and second degrees analysing photographs — how they’re made, how light behaves, how perspective distorts, and, crucially, how easily untrained viewers misread images. 

 

Two degrees eh! Well I like three. 

 

 

11 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Let's put this principle to the test with a practical exercise

Yes... let's do that!

 

If multiple light sources were used... there would be multiple shadows for all those objects illuminated by multiple sources.  I don't see multiple shadows for any of them.

 

Bzzzzzt!  You've been gonged!

11 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

gamb00ler said there must have been a handheld lighting device on the Moon surface when they took the picture, which I quickly disproved as it is officially confirmed that the only light source during this purported photo shoot was the Sun. He did not pursue the exchange.

Face it: most of your nonsense is unworthy of a response

2 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

Face it: most of your nonsense is unworthy of a response

 

Coincidentally, only when you can't talk your way out of it… but correlation does not mean causation, of course! 

 Make up your mind.

  

23 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

Looks like they had taken some hand held battery powered lights up with them

 

 

3 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

If multiple light sources were used... there would be multiple shadows for all those objects illuminated by multiple sources.  I don't see multiple shadows for any of them.

 

2 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Coincidentally, only when you can't talk your way out of it… but correlation does not mean causation, of course! 

Why are some of the members less than polite?

 

The same few all the time. On virtually any topic. I reckon it's either because they don't understand the argument being presented, or they become exasperated because some of us don't see things the same way as themselves. Either way; they can't construct a good defence.

 

Long live the deep thinkers I say.

 

 

3 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 Make up your mind.

  

 

 

 

You need remedial reading help.  Nowhere did I claim they USED multiple light sources for the photo in question.  I merely suggested they would have planned to have transportable battery powered lights with them.  You make sooooo many weak assumptions..... no wonder you don't understand much.

Make up your mind.

  

On 4/23/2025 at 11:23 AM, kwilco said:

Because a mystery feels more thrilling than facts. And blaming the unknown feels better than admitting we just don’t know everything.

 

8 hours ago, kwilco said:

like all conspiracy theorists, you are looking for a static black and white solution to suit yourself

 

4 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Long live the deep thinkers I say.

Thank you for the well wishes... so far I'm outliving the ancestors that I knew personally.

1 minute ago, gamb00ler said:

Thank you for the well wishes... so far I'm outliving the ancestors that I knew personally.

Stay away from useless vaccines and you could live even longer.

13 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Why are some of the members less than polite?

 

The same few all the time. On virtually any topic. I reckon it's either because they don't understand the argument being presented, or they become exasperated because some of us don't see things the same way as themselves. Either way; they can't construct a good defence.

 

Long live the deep thinkers I say.

 

 

 

They have an ego the size of Russia and will go to any lengths – as far as radically contradicting themselves within the same conversation – to have the last word.

 

Don't forget they are smarter and more educated than us, Stiddle. They Know, that's all.

1 minute ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Stay away from useless vaccines and you could live even longer.

Chances are good that I made it into this world due to vaccinations.

7 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

Chances are good that I made it into this world due to vaccinations.

Really!! Well good for you Sir.

 

Vaccines are toxic filth. Whether they are given to covid dumsters, preggers women, or babes and toddlers.

 

I hope to see the day when all vaccines are shown up to be what they are. A $$$ making scam.

 

 

1 minute ago, Stiddle Mump said:

hope to see the day when all vaccines are shone up to be what they are. A $$$ making scam.

Currently capitalistic countries are doing better than those who aren't.  So... making $$$ is pretty effective.

 

You seem to have fallen asleep sometime in the 1880's and missed a lot.  Go back to sleep and wake up again next century.

11 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Stay away from useless vaccines and you could live even longer.

Very bad advice, and not to be taken seriously..............🤨

24 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

Currently capitalistic countries are doing better than those who aren't.  So... making $$$ is pretty effective.

 

You seem to have fallen asleep sometime in the 1880's and missed a lot.  Go back to sleep and wake up again next century.

 

There were three sides to the coin back in those days. There were medicine men at one with nature. There were chancers, who would say, and do, anything to make a buck. Then there were some that actually believed germs caused illness.

 

Now-a-days we have the $$$ based white-coats writing out drug prescriptions before the client has even sat down to explain his/her problem.

 

The half/half people who don't like vaccines; but the good ones are OK. They believe in the germ theory.

 

Then there are the enlightened, who see the truth about health. See through the $$$ ridden health authorities and regulators. See through the know nothing white-coats pushing the needle into babes and toddlers. Saying 'safe n effective' as the little kids try to get away. But can't.

 

24 minutes ago, transam said:

Very bad advice, and not to be taken seriously..............🤨

 

I'm here to help people Sir.

 

I'm not suggesting a sick person should 100% take my advice. But my words might cause them to do some research, and then be able to break free from the medical dogma, that has probably made them sick in the first place.

3 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

 

There were three sides to the coin back in those days. There were medicine men at one with nature. There were chancers, who would say, and do, anything to make a buck. Then there were some that actually believed germs caused illness.

 

Now-a-days we have the $$$ based white-coats writing out drug prescriptions before the client has even sat down to explain his/her problem.

 

The half/half people who don't like vaccines; but the good ones are OK. They believe in the germ theory.

 

Then there are the enlightened, who see the truth about health. See through the $$$ ridden health authorities and regulators. See through the know nothing white-coats pushing the needle into babes and toddlers. Saying 'safe n effective' as the little kids try to get away. But can't.

 

 

I'm here to help people Sir.

 

I'm not suggesting a sick person should 100% take my advice. But my words might cause them to do some research, and then be able to break free from the medical dogma, that has probably made them sick in the first place.

No you're not, you're a weirdo..😒

15 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

My belief: this is evidence that the picture was not taken on the surface of the Moon, but in a studio with two light sources.

but.... what about the rocks in the upper left.... they seem to have a shadow pointing to the right.... implying to simpletons that there is ANOTHER light source to the left... LOL

4 minutes ago, transam said:

No you're not, you're a weirdo..😒

Because I reject what I know to be anti-science and anti-nature?

 

Nature has all the answers Trans buddy. Not the white-coats hurting babes for money ($$$).

2 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Because I reject what I know to be anti-science and anti-nature?

 

Nature has all the answers Trans buddy. Not the white-coats hurting babes for money ($$$).

You need to be in a place where all the staff wear white coats...............😬

Just now, gamb00ler said:

but.... what about the rocks in the upper left.... they seem to have a shadow pointing to the right.... 

 

A very astute remark indeed. This multiple-direction shadow phenomenon is not observable on any other Apollo 17 photographs, so the 'lunar surface secondary illumination' explanation given by kwilco is invalid. Which leaves his other explanation: secondary illumination on spacesuits:

  

14 hours ago, kwilco said:

The sun was the only light source on the moon. The astronaut’s bright white suit and the lunar surface both reflect sunlight, creating secondary illumination — exactly what physics predicts.

 

For this to be a valid take, there would have to be two astronauts with Schmitt outside the frame of the picture, in order to create a secondary illumination coming both from the right and the left. Only problem with this reasoning: Schmitt was accompanied by Eugene Cernan only when he took pictures of the lunar surface, as Ronald Evans officially remained in the module. The plot thickens…

18 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

implying to simpletons that there is ANOTHER light source to the left... LOL

  

On 12/28/2025 at 8:47 AM, gamb00ler said:

Looks like they had taken some hand held battery powered lights up with them.

 

12 minutes ago, transam said:

You need to be in a place where all the staff wear white coats...............😬

Really funny one liner as usual Trans Sir.

 

But what am I saying that you don't agree with? Debate; why don't you?

5 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Really funny one liner as usual Trans Sir.

 

But what am I saying that you don't agree with? Debate; why don't you?

With a fruitcake, your 'avin a larf.........