1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

What is your take on the theory that it is made of plasma?

Nah - its made up of Basaltic cheese....

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Nah - its made up of Basaltic cheese....

But how do you milk a cow in space? The plot thickens…

On the topic of press conference body language, I am almost done watching this and it is certainly interesting. This guy, a clinical and forensic psychologist, makes it clear he is not a 'conspiracy theorist' and is not claiming they faked the Moon landing. But the body language is, objectively, the kind usually associated with deception (as well as other things such as anxiety and stress).

7 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

10 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Nah - its made up of Basaltic cheese....

But how do you milk a cow in space? The plot thickens…

All those Aliens... before they take their UFO's and fly to the USA and kidnap 'mericans for anal probing...

8 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

All those Aliens... before they take their UFO's and fly to the USA and kidnap 'mericans for anal probing...

A thread on alien abductions is warranted… in due time.

6 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

On the topic of press conference body language, I am almost done watching this and it is certainly interesting. This guy, a clinical and forensic psychologist, makes it clear he is not a 'conspiracy theorist' and is not claiming they faked the Moon landing. But the body language is, objectively, the kind usually associated with deception (as well as other things such as anxiety and stress).

Interesting - but there's a useful parallel here...

In 1973, psychologist David Rosenhan sent eight perfectly sane volunteers into different psychiatric hospitals. Once admitted, they behaved completely normally. Every single one was diagnosed with a serious mental illness - mostly schizophrenia. They were kept for days to weeks (one for 52 days), prescribed antipsychotic drugs (most of which they quietly flushed down the toilet), and had totally ordinary behaviour interpreted as symptoms. Taking notes became “pathological writing behaviour”.

The irony? Other patients often said things like, “You’re not crazy - you’re a journalist or a professor.”

Yes, psychiatry and psychology aren’t the same thing - but they sit on the same mental health map. Both assess behaviour, both interpret human signals, both diagnose and treat conditions like depression, anxiety and PTSD. The overlap matters.

Now apply that knowledge to this video. We have a clinical and forensic psychologist analysing the body language of the Apollo 11 astronauts and highlighting potential dishonesty - But the key point: he is looking for something. If he wasn’t, this video wouldn’t exist.

The Rosenhan experiment shows that even trained experts can see things that simply aren’t there.

Normal behaviour gets filtered through expectation and suddenly becomes “evidence”. So the real question isn’t whether the psychologist spotted odd body language or communication cues - it’s whether he interpreted them because he was already primed to find them.

That’s interpretation bias - When you go looking for deception, it can usually be found - or at least suggested as a possibility. And that’s exactly what happens here. The conclusion doesn’t have to be definitive; it just has to sound plausible.

That’s perfect for people who have no interest in balance. The nuance gets ignored, the uncertainty gets dropped, and the takeaway becomes simple: “Even a psychologist says they were lying.”

19 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

A thread on alien abductions is warranted… in due time.

Please no...

... Statistically, alien abduction reports are overwhelmingly American - about 65% - and rectal probing claims appear in roughly one in three US cases....

20 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

A thread on alien abductions is warranted… in due time.

Abductions aside - a discussion on Aliens, whether they exist, whether they have visited the earth, i.e. Fingerprints of the Gods etc... we could be on the same side of the fence on this one...

But abductions - nah - just too much LSD and yanks waking up with itchy bungholes !...

1 minute ago, richard_smith237 said:

Abductions aside - a discussion on Aliens, whether they exist, whether they have visited the earth, i.e. Fingerprints of the Gods etc... we could be on the same side of the fence on this one...

But abductions - nah - just too much LSD and yanks waking up with itchy bungholes !...

That's the first thing I thought when I briefly checked ten minutes ago: why did they only purportedly happen in the US?

8 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Interesting - but there's a useful parallel here...

In 1973, psychologist David Rosenhan sent eight perfectly sane volunteers into different psychiatric hospitals. Once admitted, they behaved completely normally. Every single one was diagnosed with a serious mental illness - mostly schizophrenia. They were kept for days to weeks (one for 52 days), prescribed antipsychotic drugs (most of which they quietly flushed down the toilet), and had totally ordinary behaviour interpreted as symptoms. Taking notes became “pathological writing behaviour”.

The irony? Other patients often said things like, “You’re not crazy - you’re a journalist or a professor.”

Yes, psychiatry and psychology aren’t the same thing - but they sit on the same mental health map. Both assess behaviour, both interpret human signals, both diagnose and treat conditions like depression, anxiety and PTSD. The overlap matters.

Now apply that knowledge to this video. We have a clinical and forensic psychologist analysing the body language of the Apollo 11 astronauts and highlighting potential dishonesty - But the key point: he is looking for something. If he wasn’t, this video wouldn’t exist.

The Rosenhan experiment shows that even trained experts can see things that simply aren’t there.

Normal behaviour gets filtered through expectation and suddenly becomes “evidence”. So the real question isn’t whether the psychologist spotted odd body language or communication cues - it’s whether he interpreted them because he was already primed to find them.

That’s interpretation bias - When you go looking for deception, it can usually be found - or at least suggested as a possibility. And that’s exactly what happens here. The conclusion doesn’t have to be definitive; it just has to sound plausible.

That’s perfect for people who have no interest in balance. The nuance gets ignored, the uncertainty gets dropped, and the takeaway becomes simple: “Even a psychologist says they were lying.”

I have no doubt this guy knew he was going to get a lot of views for this video and capitalised on it… but he makes no categorical statements and there is no denying Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins are behaving strangely. By the way, in the last part of the video, he shows the pre-mission press conference and they display the same body language, so whatever is causing their unease is not mission-induced PTSD. As he says, it could be due to a number of things, namely struggling with the pressure and exposure… but one possible explanation is deception and it is perfectly valid to mention it.

8 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Its called 'light fall off' - and has been covered extensively in many moon-landing-denier debunking videos...

Ultimately - the lunar module itself was so reflective it acted as a second light source.

I watched the first video you posted and at 9:00, he actually inadvertedly confirms my point: several different light sources with very narrow beam angles, in a studio environment, will create intersecting shadows.

He goes on to explain that on the Moon, this phenomenon was due to perspective, and he then gives the classic rail track example to explain the principle of two parallel lines which will appear to converge over distance. But this perspective explanation does not explain the perpendicular shadows of my example in Harrison Schmitt's photograph, which are at a 90° angle over a very short distance of about 1 metre.

I will watch the second video, but the explanation given in this one is invalid.

17 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

I have no doubt this guy knew he was going to get a lot of views for this video and capitalised on it… but he makes no categorical statements and there is no denying Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins are behaving strangely. By the way, in the last part of the video, he shows the pre-mission press conference and they display the same body language, so whatever is causing their unease is not mission-induced PTSD. As he says, it could be due to a number of things, namely struggling with the pressure and exposure… but one possible explanation is deception and it is perfectly valid to mention it.

The mission itself lasted days, but the programme ran for eight years. By the time they even sat on top of the rocket, they’d already been through the mill - years of training, simulations, tests, failures, pressure and scrutiny, as explained in an earlier post.

What people see on camera is the tip of the iceberg. What they don’t see is the sheer psychological and physical grind that came before it. Expecting three men to look relaxed, emotionally “normal”, or perfectly aligned with some imagined body-language baseline after all that is wildly naive IMO.

Context matters a great deal here - And without it, people end up reading meaning into exhaustion, gravity and history.

But without that context, actions and behaviour can be framed to look however someone wants them to look. A pause becomes hesitation, stress becomes guilt, exhaustion becomes deception. The interpretation does the work, not the evidence.

That’s the trick. If you want something to look suspicious badly enough, you can usually make it look that way.... "See? They’re lying. Look how guilty they look".

Or… you can flip the lens. "They’re under an extreme workload. See how taxing this is on them".

Same footage. Same behaviour. Completely different story.

The difference isn’t what’s on screen - it’s what the viewer is primed to see. To be fair, the video at least tries to eliminate bias and remain subjective, but it still gives deniers just enough oxygen to see what they want to see.

Nuance gets lost, caveats get ignored, and possibility quietly turns into “proof”. Once that happens, the analysis stops mattering and the confirmation bias takes over.

10 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

I will watch the second video, but the explanation given in this one is invalid.

Its not if you move the subject in reference to the light source and reflected light source.

3 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

The difference isn’t what’s on screen - it’s what the viewer is primed to see. To be fair, the video at least tries to eliminate bias and remain subjective, but it still gives deniers just enough oxygen to see what they want to see.

Nuance gets lost, caveats get ignored, and possibility quietly turns into “proof”. Once that happens, the analysis stops mattering and the confirmation bias takes over.

I agree and this goes both ways, which is what makes these debates so complex and why they so often degenerate into the "I'm right, no I'm right" spectacle.

Total objectivity is very difficult to achieve. I have been trying long enough to know that.

On 1/18/2026 at 9:31 AM, liddelljohn said:

Bart Sibrel is a complete charlaton like Von Daniken and all the flat earthers ,, only gullible uneducated fools with no ability too study the facts believe this moon hoax dribble .. Even USA 's rivals have confirmed many times that the Moon landings actually happened .... but of course morons make up 80% of humanity , thats how you get MAGA and people like trump elected or Starmer in UK .. same type of peole believe in gods too and look what that does to the world LOL

and you just had to turn this into politics!

Cant we just keep to the topics on here, why always jumping to politics and Trump!!

9 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Its called 'light fall off' - and has been covered extensively in many moon-landing-denier debunking videos...

Ultimately - the lunar module itself was so reflective it acted as a second light source.

I watched the second video.

The first thing of note is that he refers to Jan Lundberg (who was in charge of developing the Hasselblad cameras used on Apollo missions and famously claimed that one particular photograph could only be the result of spotlight projection) as "a project manager" who probably doesn't know much about photography: "Being a project manager doesn't automatically mean he's a photographer"… "It doesn't automatically means he knows about photography, it just means he's managing the project".

This is a gross misrepresentation, as a quick search for Lundberg shows that he is usually referred to as an engineer and a chief designer: he was Project Engineer and Group Manager for Space Projects at Victor Hasselblad AB (1966-1975) and was a specialist in this specific field, which is why NASA used his services.

The guy in this video, Dave McKeegan, is using the basic sophistic approach of misrepresenting a person's qualifications and role in order to cast doubt on their relevance. Therefore, McKeegan's integrity is questionable.

Regarding the explanation that the lunar module was a second light source through reflection, this would be a possible explanation if there was just one perpendicular shadow in the photograph, but there are two (on the left and right). So this is also invalid, and so far, the only viable explanation is that spotlights were used.

[The assessment of these two videos was not done with AI, it was done with HI (human intelligence) and took about 60 minutes.]

21 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Coming at the 'Moon Landings' from a different angle.

https://www.ukcolumn.org/video/probability-theory-debunks-the-moon-landing-ferdinand-santos-jerm-warfare

Just watched it, indeed his take that the probability of this mission actually succeeding was virtually nil is very compelling, namely compared to the one Earth simulation which was made and which was an absolute disaster. He also completely dismantles the Gagarin fabrication – the USSR's 'space conquest' was just as fraudulent as the US's (shout-out to the "if it was fake, the USSR would have revealed it" crowd).

I also agree (and have mentioned this in other threads) that the gist of the issue is philosophical: I don't think it is possible to understand "science" in its current form without first understanding that.

He has a substack too:

https://unstabbinated.substack.com/

5 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

But how do you milk a cow in space? The plot thickens…

Should have said the cream thickens. 😅

15 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Adjusted for inflation, the Apollo missions cost over 250 billion dollars. That's a lot of money to prove the supremacy of the US to the world, isn't it? It isn't as if we didn't have our share of problems to solve on firm ground…

In fact, there is an Apollo astronaut, Edgar Mitchell, who shared this view. He became an advocate for redirecting priorities, claiming mankind should focus on its 'inner space' and try rectifying its own environment before striving to 'expand its dominion'…

True those 250 billion could have been better spent, when you think about it, namely to alleviate the famine problems of a large part of the world.

That’s not an entirely unreasonable point of view but then we wouldn’t have ball point pens or teflon saucepans and the list goes on but you know that.

If we followed that line of thought however we wouldn’t be sitting in mums basement in our filthy underwear having this discussion with the unhinged on the other side of the world, we’d still be sitting in trees on the savanah and Mother Nature would still be in harmony.

7 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

On the topic of press conference body language, I am almost done watching this and it is certainly interesting. This guy, a clinical and forensic psychologist, makes it clear he is not a 'conspiracy theorist' and is not claiming they faked the Moon landing. But the body language is, objectively, the kind usually associated with deception (as well as other things such as anxiety and stress).

So why doesn’t our “expert” come out and say “In my opinion these guys are exhibiting signs of anxiety and stress caused by their intense physical and psychological journey over the past 5 years”

Nah, they’re lying… 🙄

8 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Nah - its made up of Basaltic cheese....

As far I know based on scientists who sampled moon, and findings on earth, we share the same composition but different because of different moon and earth activity. Simplified said. I can use AI if you want a bit more clear answer?

I just wondering how much time people use to convise themselves the reality we are living in is not as we are told!

All these resources could have been spent differently ?

What a waste human being are generally said, considering there are som much to do

There’s a science communicator in Australia by the name of Karl Kruszelnicki.

He tried to join NASA but at that time NASA only sent US citizens into space.

He has met Armstrong and describes him and the other astronauts he met as being almost automated and quite robotic when you engaged with them, almost detached.

When you hear him speak of them you get the feeling that it is almost a “personality trait” of simply being an astronaut.

They do not have the luxury of thinking emotively, they are trained to respond to the stimulus and “solve the problem”

So why were they not wagging their tails during the post flight interviews, simply they are not tail wagging personality types.

10 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

The first thing of note is that he refers to Jan Lundberg (who was in charge of developing the Hasselblad cameras used on Apollo missions and famously claimed that one particular photograph could only be the result of spotlight projection) as "a project manager" who probably doesn't know much about photography: "Being a project manager doesn't automatically mean he's a photographer"… "It doesn't automatically means he knows about photography, it just means he's managing the project".

This is a gross misrepresentation, as a quick search for Lundberg shows that he is usually referred to as an engineer and a chief designer: he was Project Engineer and Group Manager for Space Projects at Victor Hasselblad AB (1966-1975) and was a specialist in this specific field, which is why NASA used his services.

The guy in this video, Dave McKeegan, is using the basic sophistic approach of misrepresenting a person's qualifications and role in order to cast doubt on their relevance. Therefore, McKeegan's integrity is questionable.

No - its not a gross misrepresentation at all - Lundberg was and Engineer, not a Photographer.

He is described in several analyses as a Hasselblad engineer responsible for modifying and adapting Hasselblad cameras for use on the Apollo missions.

Specifically, he served in a technical capacity at Hasselblad (often referenced as “Project Engineer” or “Manager of Space Projects” for the Hasselblad lunar camera program from the mid-1960s to mid-1970s).

What that means ????... His expertise was in camera design and engineering, ensuring the cameras could function in the vacuum of space, handle temperature extremes, and interface with astronaut use.

His expertise was not primarily in photographic composition, lighting theory, or artistic photography.

The apparent convergence of 'shadow's which implicate multiple light sources have been debunked numerous times.

The explanation for shadows in difference directions is exaggerated in your photo for a few reasons:

The Taurus-Littrow Valley is NOT flat

Apollo 17 landed in one of the most geologically complex areas ever visited:

- With a sloped valley floor

- With lots of boulders and ejecta

- With shallow craters everywhere

A shadow crossing non-planar ground will.

- curve

- narrow or widen

- appear to change direction

Then there is the Wide-angle shot itself

Apollo 17 photos were shot with wide-angle Hasselblad lenses

- as a result the wide angle lens exaggerates geometry

- Shadows close to the camera look thick and dramatic

- Shadows farther away look angled or skewed

- Parallel shadows do not look parallel in 2D

Then there is the 'secondary illumination' aspect that does not mean 'studio' lighting.

For example, Asstronauts have often appeared visible 'inside' their own shadows and the reasons for that are multiple.

- lunar regolith reflects sunlight

- nearby sunlit slopes act as giant reflectors

- white spacesuits bounce light back into shadowed areas

- The lunar module itself acts as a reflective light source.

- This is all natural fill light - the same effect is found on earth in snow, desert and salt flats.

Thus - what you think you see with 'multiple' light sources is in fact an artefact of.

- The Sun being very far away = converging shadows.

- Camera lens Geometry (exaggerating the converging effect)

- Non-planar surface (cratered uneven surface)

- Reflection from additional light sources - but thats not the case in the photo you presented "The Astronaught" taken during the Apollo 17 mission.

- This photo is simply taken with a fisheye lens, on uneven ground (crater) and shadows appear nearly 90 degrees apart due to the 3D to 2D effect i.e. perspective projection.

The similar fish-eye convergence effect can can be seen in this 'earth shot' below.

I've edited the arrows onto the same "astronaut" shot showing those same lines of fish-eye convergence - the difference is - because we do not see the horizon - the fish-eye effect is less obvious.

5 hours ago, Hummin said:

As far I know based on scientists who sampled moon, and findings on earth, we share the same composition but different because of different moon and earth activity. Simplified said. I can use AI if you want a bit more clear answer?

One of the clearest indicators that rocks from the moon are not terrestrial is the absence of oxidation. On Earth, iron-bearing rocks inevitably show signs of oxidation due to our atmosphere and water. The pristine, chemically reduced state seen in lunar samples simply does not occur naturally in surface rocks from Earth.

There is also a physical argument. Rocks with the density of basalt would not survive passage through Earth’s atmosphere if they had originated elsewhere in the Solar System and arrived here as meteorites. The stresses and heating of atmospheric entry would destroy material of that size and composition before it ever reached the ground.

While it is technically possible to find reduced basalt on Earth, it only occurs under very specific and protected conditions, and even then there are clear chemical signatures that distinguish it from lunar material. The mineral chemistry, oxidation state, and isotopic composition of Moon rocks rule out an Earth origin.

It is also worth noting that basalt is only part of the story. The Moon’s surface is composed of a variety of rock types, not just basalt, and together they form a coherent geological record that is uniquely lunar.

7 hours ago, HighPriority said:

So why doesn’t our “expert” come out and say “In my opinion these guys are exhibiting signs of anxiety and stress caused by their intense physical and psychological journey over the past 5 years”

Nah, they’re lying… 🙄

He does. There is a real benefit in actually acquainting oneself with material before commenting on it…

7 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

He does. There is a real benefit in actually acquainting oneself with material before commenting on it…

I am extremely reticent to monetize conspiracy nuts anywhere in any shape or form.

They don’t need and shan’t get my encouragement

2 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

No - its not a gross misrepresentation at all - Lundberg was and Engineer, not a Photographer.

He is described in several analyses as a Hasselblad engineer responsible for modifying and adapting Hasselblad cameras for use on the Apollo missions.

Specifically, he served in a technical capacity at Hasselblad (often referenced as “Project Engineer” or “Manager of Space Projects” for the Hasselblad lunar camera program from the mid-1960s to mid-1970s).

What that means ????... His expertise was in camera design and engineering, ensuring the cameras could function in the vacuum of space, handle temperature extremes, and interface with astronaut use.

His expertise was not primarily in photographic composition, lighting theory, or artistic photography.

To imply that a technical engineer of this level – trained for years in designing and adapting cameras according to the constraints of non-earthly parameters – does not possess basic photography training and knowledge is preposterous. He will typically know a lot more, and in a lot more detail, than your average wedding or portrait photographer.

2 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

No - its not a gross misrepresentation at all - Lundberg was and Engineer, not a Photographer.

He is described in several analyses as a Hasselblad engineer responsible for modifying and adapting Hasselblad cameras for use on the Apollo missions.

Specifically, he served in a technical capacity at Hasselblad (often referenced as “Project Engineer” or “Manager of Space Projects” for the Hasselblad lunar camera program from the mid-1960s to mid-1970s).

What that means ????... His expertise was in camera design and engineering, ensuring the cameras could function in the vacuum of space, handle temperature extremes, and interface with astronaut use.

His expertise was not primarily in photographic composition, lighting theory, or artistic photography.

The apparent convergence of 'shadow's which implicate multiple light sources have been debunked numerous times.

The explanation for shadows in difference directions is exaggerated in your photo for a few reasons:

The Taurus-Littrow Valley is NOT flat

Apollo 17 landed in one of the most geologically complex areas ever visited:

- With a sloped valley floor

- With lots of boulders and ejecta

- With shallow craters everywhere

A shadow crossing non-planar ground will.

- curve

- narrow or widen

- appear to change direction

Then there is the Wide-angle shot itself

Apollo 17 photos were shot with wide-angle Hasselblad lenses

- as a result the wide angle lens exaggerates geometry

- Shadows close to the camera look thick and dramatic

- Shadows farther away look angled or skewed

- Parallel shadows do not look parallel in 2D

Then there is the 'secondary illumination' aspect that does not mean 'studio' lighting.

For example, Asstronauts have often appeared visible 'inside' their own shadows and the reasons for that are multiple.

- lunar regolith reflects sunlight

- nearby sunlit slopes act as giant reflectors

- white spacesuits bounce light back into shadowed areas

- The lunar module itself acts as a reflective light source.

- This is all natural fill light - the same effect is found on earth in snow, desert and salt flats.

Thus - what you think you see with 'multiple' light sources is in fact an artefact of.

- The Sun being very far away = converging shadows.

- Camera lens Geometry (exaggerating the converging effect)

- Non-planar surface (cratered uneven surface)

- Reflection from additional light sources - but thats not the case in the photo you presented "The Astronaught" taken during the Apollo 17 mission.

- This photo is simply taken with a fisheye lens, on uneven ground (crater) and shadows appear nearly 90 degrees apart due to the 3D to 2D effect i.e. perspective projection.

The similar fish-eye convergence effect can can be seen in this 'earth shot' below.

I've edited the arrows onto the same "astronaut" shot showing those same lines of fish-eye convergence - the difference is - because we do not see the horizon - the fish-eye effect is less obvious.

The comparison is invalid because Harrison Schmitt did not use a fish-eye lens during Apollo 17. He used a 60 mm Carl Zeiss lens.

26 minutes ago, HighPriority said:

I am extremely reticent to monetize conspiracy nuts anywhere in any shape or form.

They don’t need and shan’t get my encouragement

The guy in the video does not claim there is any conspiracy going on and lists several potential reasons which could explain the body language in question, one of the items on his list being deception. There is a term for this approach: objectivity.