45 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

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.

Agreed - and he can still 'interpret' lighting in an photograph incorrectly because that is not is field of expertise - making a working camera is / was - in fact thats exactly what happend IF he has suggested more than one light source for your photo.

20 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Indeed… more than two of Stan's sheds.

I initially read that as "Satan's sheds" 🤣.

The tin foil hat doesn't come off as easily as it used to.

42 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

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.

Its not an invalid at all - the 'fish eye' comparison explains (and edited photos) show the layman (you and I) how these shadows 'can' converge - they can also do so with the 60mm Zeiss Biogon f/5.6 lens used.

The apparent convergence of parallel shadows in the "Astronaut's Shadow" photo (Apollo 17) is a normal effect of linear perspective. The camera's wide field of view exaggerates this natural perspective, especially when objects in the foreground are emphasised due to proximity to the lens.

When using any wide-angle lens for close-up shots, objects closer to the camera appear disproportionately large compared to the background, a natural phenomenon known as perspective distortion. This, combined with the low angle of the sun and uneven lunar terrain, contributes to the dramatic appearance of the shadows.

20 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

20 hours ago, BeastOfBodmin said:

Is the Moon flat too? 🤦‍♂️

Yup - its flat disk - has the light side and the dark side... the Chinese have a Military base on the dark side....

The Dark Side Of The Moon is a flat disk with a hole in the centre and a spiral scratch running clockwise from the outside to near the inside. The Chinese have got one hell of a karaoke setup over there.

9 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Agreed - and he can still 'interpret' lighting in an photograph incorrectly because that is not is field of expertise - making a working camera is / was - in fact thats exactly what happend IF he has suggested more than one light source for your photo.

It's totally possible (and acceptable to posit) that Lundberg got it wrong for a number of reasons. A good approach, for a real truth seeker, would be to contact him directly and discuss it with him.

Making dubious claims about his expertise and relevance in order to discredit his word behind his back is sophism and nothing else, and IMO doesn't show the speaker (here, McKeegan) in a favourable or trustworthy light.

7 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Its not an invalid at all - the 'fish eye' comparison explains (and edited photos) show the layman (you and I) how these shadows 'can' converge - they can also do so with the 60mm Zeiss Biogon f/5.6 lens used.

The apparent convergence of parallel shadows in the "Astronaut's Shadow" photo (Apollo 17) is a normal effect of linear perspective. The camera's wide field of view exaggerates this natural perspective, especially when objects in the foreground are emphasised due to proximity to the lens.

When using any wide-angle lens for close-up shots, objects closer to the camera appear disproportionately large compared to the background, a natural phenomenon known as perspective distortion. This, combined with the low angle of the sun and uneven lunar terrain, contributes to the dramatic appearance of the shadows.

I understand the principle, however, from my layman perspective, this doesn't yet prove that an actual 90° angle can be produced over an obviously very short distance (a couple of metres) from both sides simultaneously. Even in your example taken on Earth using extreme fish-eye distorsion, a quasi-perpendicular angle is achieved on the right hand-side of the photograph, but not on the left hand-side.

15 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

It's totally possible (and acceptable to posit) that Lundberg got it wrong for a number of reasons. A good approach, for a real truth seeker, would be to contact him directly and discuss it with him.

Making dubious claims about his expertise and relevance in order to discredit his word behind his back is sophism and nothing else, and IMO doesn't show the speaker (here, McKeegan) in a favourable or trustworthy light.

He should arguably have sought the input of photographic experts before going on record suggesting the images were faked - because specialists in photographic analysis already have well-established explanations for the visual effects in those photos.

While he publicly held the titles of Project Engineer and Group Manager for Space Projects at Victor Hasselblad AB between 1966 and 1975, his expertise was in camera design and engineering. His role focused on ensuring the equipment could operate in the vacuum of space, tolerate extreme temperature swings, and be usable by astronauts in a hostile environment. That is a highly specialised and impressive field - but it is not the same as expertise in photographic interpretation, lighting analysis, or image geometry.

Because he chose to make public claims about photographic anomalies, it is entirely reasonable to question the scope of his authority on that subject. His professional standing gives his statements added weight in the public eye, but that makes it more important - not less - to clarify whether those statements fall within his actual domain of expertise.

This highlights a broader issue in how technical debates are framed. When someone speaks from an apparent position of authority, their views can gain credibility simply because of their title, even if their expertise relates to how an image is captured, rather than how an image should be interpreted.

We see the same distinction in many other fields. Engineers who design highly advanced equipment for subsea seismic mapping are not the geophysicists responsible for interpreting the geological data. Likewise, the engineers who design MRI scanners are not the medical specialists trained to interpret the diagnostic images those machines produce. The skill sets are complementary, but not interchangeable.

In exactly the same way, designing a camera capable of working on the Moon does not automatically confer expertise in analysing photographic perspective, lighting behaviour, or visual perception. When claims are made outside one’s core discipline - especially in public - they should be open to scrutiny from those whose expertise lies in the relevant field.

And finally, I'd like to add one more point - did he [Lundberg] suggest ANY of the photographs taken by his Camera - Hasselblad 500 EL using a 60mm Zeiss Biogon f/5.6 lens as being studio generated ?

Because... we have gone down the 'Rabbit hole' on somewhat of a red-herring...

The only version circulating that Lundberg suggested 'fakery' is an unverified snippet claimed to come from a conspiracy documentary.

- In that snippet, he reportedly says something like “I can’t explain that” when asked about a specific photographic anomaly - but that’s not a statement alleging fakery. It’s an engineer saying he doesn’t personally know the explanation for a particular visual effect.

- There is no credible record of Lundberg saying the Apollo photos were all faked or studio-generated.

This pattern - quoting a lack of personal explanation and interpreting it as an admission of fraud - is common in conspiracy retellings. It’s not the same as a scientifically documented claim by Lundberg himself.

So, back to your original point 'YOU' can't see how this photo has shadows at 90 degrees - the only answer I have for you after explaining it to you is... "I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you"...

The image below shows the perspective projection amplification of wide angle lenses of parallel lines - shown on both a Fish-Eye lens and a Wide Angle lens.

The principle is the same with a single distant light source - with a converging perspective projection.

IF there were a closer bright light source the opposite would occur and instead of convergence the shadows would diverge - this in itself is proof that the photo you presented could not have been taken in a studio - but required a very distant strong light source for that level convergence to be displayed with wide angle lens.

Not - I should not have to spell it out - but the above photo highlights perspective projection of parallel lines in photography (not shadows - but the principle is the same).

47 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

I understand the principle, however, from my layman perspective, this doesn't yet prove that an actual 90° angle can be produced over an obviously very short distance (a couple of metres) from both sides simultaneously. Even in your example taken on Earth using extreme fish-eye distorsion, a quasi-perpendicular angle is achieved on the right hand-side of the photograph, but not on the left hand-side.

I see your point on the 'distance' factor - but we do not have a distance scale and cannot tell how far away the opposing shadows are - the could be 2m away they could be 50m away - we have no horizon and no form of scale.

36 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

He should arguably have sought the input of photographic experts before going on record suggesting the images were faked - because specialists in photographic analysis already have well-established explanations for the visual effects in those photos.

While he publicly held the titles of Project Engineer and Group Manager for Space Projects at Victor Hasselblad AB between 1966 and 1975, his expertise was in camera design and engineering. His role focused on ensuring the equipment could operate in the vacuum of space, tolerate extreme temperature swings, and be usable by astronauts in a hostile environment. That is a highly specialised and impressive field - but it is not the same as expertise in photographic interpretation, lighting analysis, or image geometry.

Because he chose to make public claims about photographic anomalies, it is entirely reasonable to question the scope of his authority on that subject. His professional standing gives his statements added weight in the public eye, but that makes it more important - not less - to clarify whether those statements fall within his actual domain of expertise.

This highlights a broader issue in how technical debates are framed. When someone speaks from an apparent position of authority, their views can gain credibility simply because of their title, even if their expertise relates to how an image is captured, rather than how an image should be interpreted.

We see the same distinction in many other fields. Engineers who design highly advanced equipment for subsea seismic mapping are not the geophysicists responsible for interpreting the geological data. Likewise, the engineers who design MRI scanners are not the medical specialists trained to interpret the diagnostic images those machines produce. The skill sets are complementary, but not interchangeable.

In exactly the same way, designing a camera capable of working on the Moon does not automatically confer expertise in analysing photographic perspective, lighting behaviour, or visual perception. When claims are made outside one’s core discipline - especially in public - they should be open to scrutiny from those whose expertise lies in the relevant field.

And finally, I'd like to add one more point - did he [Lundberg] suggest ANY of the photographs taken by his Camera - Hasselblad 500 EL using a 60mm Zeiss Biogon f/5.6 lens as being studio generated ?

Because... we have gone down the 'Rabbit hole' on somewhat of a red-herring...

The only version circulating that Lundberg suggested 'fakery' is an unverified snippet claimed to come from a conspiracy documentary.

- In that snippet, he reportedly says something like “I can’t explain that” when asked about a specific photographic anomaly - but that’s not a statement alleging fakery. It’s an engineer saying he doesn’t personally know the explanation for a particular visual effect.

- There is no credible record of Lundberg saying the Apollo photos were all faked or studio-generated.

This pattern - quoting a lack of personal explanation and interpreting it as an admission of fraud - is common in conspiracy retellings. It’s not the same as a scientifically documented claim by Lundberg himself.

So, back to your original point 'YOU' can't see how this photo has shadows at 90 degrees - the only answer I have for you after explaining it to you is... "I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you"...

The image below shows the perspective projection amplification of wide angle lenses of parallel lines - shown on both a Fish-Eye lens and a Wide Angle lens.

The principle is the same with a single distant light source - with a converging perspective projection.

IF there were a closer bright light source the opposite would occur and instead of convergence the shadows would diverge - this in itself is proof that the photo you presented could not have been taken in a studio - but required a very distant strong light source for that level convergence to be displayed with wide angle lens.

Not - I should not have to spell it out - but the above photo highlights perspective projection of parallel lines in photography (not shadows - but the principle is the same).

38 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

So, back to your original point 'YOU' can't see how this photo has shadows at 90 degrees - the only answer I have for you after explaining it to you is... "I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you"...

I understand the principle of perspective, as I said before. But you also most definitely undestand that in your examples, the angle is much wider than the one in the Schmitt photograph, the distances are much longer and ultimately the degrees are far from perpendicular and closer to 45°. All this combined means that the explanation is tenuous and far fetched when dealing with a narrower lens, objects at a distance of a few metres away lengthwise and just a few centimetres away laterally (forming a very small area) and shadows at quasi-90° angles on both sides:

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

I see your point on the 'distance' factor - but we do not have a distance scale and cannot tell how far away the opposing shadows are - the could be 2m away they could be 50m away - we have no horizon and no form of scale.

It has been estimated that his shadow is about 6 metres long in this picture. The fact that it is very neat confirms that it is short, unlike the ones in your previous example (the longer ones creating the perspective effect) which are fuzzy. The rocks can't be that far apart (as the lens he was using woud not allow extreme fish-eye distortion).

2 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

I understand the principle of perspective, as I said before. But you also most definitely undestand that in your examples, the angle is much wider than the one in the Schmitt photograph, the distances are much longer and ultimately the degrees are far from perpendicular and closer to 45°. All this combined means that the explanation is tenuous and far fetched when dealing with a narrower lens, objects at a distance of a few metres away lengthwise and just a few centimetres away laterally (forming a very small area) and shadows at quasi-90° angles on both sides:

A 60mm lense is not a narrow lens... its a wide angle lens - also consider the surface is uneven, so the shadows cast are distorted again.

In the photo - the surface is dipping inward (like a bowl) which exaggerates the converging perspective projection amplification effect.

Changing the angles of shadows over an uneven surface is something that can be easily recreated.

But for the sharp defined shadows which converge - we need a very distant light source and a low angle and a wide angle lens.

You can't see how this is possible. I can see how its easily possible.

1 minute ago, richard_smith237 said:

A 60mm lense is not a narrow lens... its a wide angle lens

But it doesn't allow a fish-eye effect as you alleged earlier:

5 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

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.

7 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

11 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

A 60mm lense is not a narrow lens... its a wide angle lens

But it doesn't allow a fish-eye effect as you alleged earlier:

5 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

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.

I used the fish eye effect as representative example - as a wide angle lens exaggerates parallax - as does fish eye - I thought this would help as the principles are the same - the close you are to the subject the greater the parallax distortion.

Another example below - some examples are more extreme than others depending on how flat the surface is - how steep the angle of the camera is - ultimately its about where the vanishing point is in reference the the camera frame.

18 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

I used the fish eye effect as representative example - as a wide angle lens exaggerates parallax - as does fish eye - I thought this would help as the principles are the same - the close you are to the subject the greater the parallax distortion.

Another example below - some examples are more extreme than others depending on how flat the surface is - how steep the angle of the camera is - ultimately its about where the vanishing point is in reference the the camera frame.

I see those shadow angles are at approximately 45° here too, which is totally acceptable.

The problem with this Apollo 17 picture I posted (and perhaps that explains why it hasn't been widely disseminated) is that it is anomalous. For the reasons we talked about, and also because other photographs from the same session (same camera, time and location) do not present these characteristics, with consistent shadows for all elements, whether natural or man-made, in the frame:

2 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

I see those shadow angles are at approximately 45° here too, which is totally acceptable.

The problem with this Apollo 17 picture I posted (and perhaps that explains why it hasn't been widely disseminated) is that it is anomalous. For the reasons we talked about, and also because other photographs from the same session (same camera, time and location) do not present these characteristics, with consistent shadows for all elements, whether natural or man-made, in the frame:

The effect occurs works with the distant light source behind the camera

When perpendicular to the light source the same effect will not be noticed, but infill lighting (reflection off bright surfaces) might.

16 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

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.

As I said in my initial post you chose to write that the crews body language was evidence of them being deceptive and you inferred that that was also the “experts” conclusion, now you’re saying they were stressed… back into the pond with you fishy.

6 hours ago, HighPriority said:

As I said in my initial post you chose to write that the crews body language was evidence of them being deceptive and you inferred that that was also the “experts” conclusion, now you’re saying they were stressed… back into the pond with you fishy.

Please point me to where I said that.

On 1/24/2026 at 2:28 AM, 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).

I’m sure you’ll have a good go at wiggling and weaseling yourself out though…

But here, I’ll help you a little… you might claim that you were merely surmising the opinion of the “expert” but I’ll counter that your bias chose to highlight that part of his balanced opinion which in shorthand was that they were “highly stressed or they were deceptive”

You chose to run with them being deceptive because that fits your cooker perspective.

1 hour ago, HighPriority said:

I’m sure you’ll have a good go at wiggling and weaseling yourself out though…

But here, I’ll help you a little… you might claim that you were merely surmising the opinion of the “expert” but I’ll counter that your bias chose to highlight that part of his balanced opinion which in shorthand was that they were “highly stressed or they were deceptive”

You chose to run with them being deceptive because that fits your cooker perspective.

You can't quote me saying it because I didn't say it.

They did go there

15 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

They did go there

Could you say why you think that Sir.

I can't see any evidence that they even left Earth's orbit. Or any human has since.

23 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Could you say why you think that Sir.

I can't see any evidence that they even left Earth's orbit. Or any human has since.

Back to start ?

27 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Could you say why you think that Sir.

I can't see any evidence that they even left Earth's orbit. Or any human has since.

It was on TV - Australia played it's role through the Parkes telescope - moon rocks - I find the theory that other countries or 1000's of individuals would stay quiet particularly weak - evidence of landings - nothing I can add that would be new - you are just annoyed that nature cannot give us the answers we seek

On 1/18/2026 at 6:40 PM, richard_smith237 said:

Anti-vaxxers... Covid conspiracists... Moon-landing deniers... Flat-earthers.... Chemtrails...

Different costumes, same troupe.

They present themselves as brave iconoclasts, lone wolves howling truth into the void. In reality, they are astonishingly predictable. If a view is held by scientists, doctors, engineers, historians, or anyone who has spent more than five minutes studying the subject, they reflexively reject it. Not because they have counter-evidence - but because it is official.

The defining feature is not scepticism. It is contrarianism. Not independent thought, but oppositional identity.

If vaccines are recommended by every serious medical body on the planet, then vaccines must be poison.
If Covid killed millions, then it must have been “just the flu” - or a hoax - or a rehearsal for global mind control.
If the Moon landing is documented by telemetry, physics, photographs, mirrors still used for laser ranging, and the testimony of thousands of engineers… then obviously it was filmed in a shed by Stanley Kubrick.
If the Earth is demonstrably round, measurable, navigable, and observable from multiple independent systems, then clearly it is flat - because NASA exists and therefore lies about everything.

The pattern is painfully consistent.

Mainstream media says A - therefore A is false. Experts agree on B - therefore B is propaganda.

Consensus emerges after decades of evidence - therefore it’s a psy-op.

Notice what never happens: they never produce a better explanatory model. They do not replace germ theory with something more predictive. They do not replace orbital mechanics with equations that work. They do not improve epidemiology, astronomy, or physics. They simply sneer at them from the sidelines and declare victory.

This isn’t free thinking. Free thinking requires work. Reading. Maths. Method. The ability to say “I might be wrong”.... What we are seeing instead in threads such as this is epistemic vandalism - the tearing down of knowledge without the capacity or intention to build anything in its place.

Even better, these movements feed on each other. Fall for one, and the rest come bundled free. Anti-vaxxers drift effortlessly into Covid conspiracies, then into 5G paranoia, then into global cabals, then into “nothing is real unless I discovered it on a Telegram channel with a wolf avatar”. The worldview must remain internally hostile to authority at all costs, otherwise the entire self-image collapses.

And that’s the crux of it.

This is not about truth. It is about identity. Being “awake”. Being special. Being one of the few clever enough to see through the grand illusion that somehow fooled every airline pilot, civil engineer, virologist, and satellite system on Earth - but not Dave on YouTube.

What masquerades as radical scepticism is far closer to a psychological tic: an automatic rejection reflex. A kind of intellectual Tourette’s, where “they’re lying” bursts out regardless of context, evidence, or coherence.

At some point, this stops being an alternative viewpoint and starts looking like a shared cognitive pathology. Not dissent, but dysfunction. Not courage, but confusion. Not free thought, but a fear of reality so profound that fantasy feels safer.

In short: if everything official is fake, nothing true is knowable - and that isn’t enlightenment. It’s stupidity.

One of the best posts I've ever read on this forum. This is something I've been trying to articulate for years.

Starting in 1970, I lived in Friendswood, TX, several of our neighbors were those astronauts that walked on the moon. I worked for/with them on their property building fences, barns and the usual stuff for cattle and horses. The men the deniers say lied about walking on the moon were not that. They were awesome people who had strong influence on me going into the Navy and getting my engineering degree, they were as honest as the day is long. They would answer all my questions without hesitating as if they were living the event that moment. So, if anyone on this forum wants to call me a delusional youth at that time, feel free to do so, I still believe it happened.

Also, most of our neighbors worked for NASA, it's hard to believe they could get all of these people to lie and follow the same story line.

On 1/26/2026 at 6:39 AM, Stiddle Mump said:

I can't see any evidence that they even left Earth's orbit. Or any human has since.

Don't your blinkers show up when you look in the mirror?

54 minutes ago, RMK54 said:

Starting in 1970, I lived in Friendswood, TX, several of our neighbors were those astronauts that walked on the moon. I worked for/with them on their property building fences, barns and the usual stuff for cattle and horses. The men the deniers say lied about walking on the moon were not that. They were awesome people who had strong influence on me going into the Navy and getting my engineering degree, they were as honest as the day is long. They would answer all my questions without hesitating as if they were living the event that moment. So, if anyone on this forum wants to call me a delusional youth at that time, feel free to do so, I still believe it happened.

Also, most of our neighbors worked for NASA, it's hard to believe they could get all of these people to lie and follow the same story line.

They didn't have to have many in the know. It was so departmentalised (if that's the word).

More than their lives were worth to expose one of the biggest hoaxes of modern times. Armstrong looked as though his life and that of his family were at risk.

Is NASA hiding a secret alien base on the dark side (far side) of the moon?

54 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

Is NASA hiding a secret alien base on the dark side (far side) of the moon?

No. That's Elon Musk's weekend getaway. 🙂

On 1/27/2026 at 3:06 PM, RMK54 said:

So, if anyone on this forum wants to call me a delusional youth at that time, feel free to do so, I still believe it happened.

That is the issue indeed: belief. Even Excalibur was easier to shift.

On 1/27/2026 at 3:06 PM, RMK54 said:

Also, most of our neighbors worked for NASA, it's hard to believe they could get all of these people to lie and follow the same story line.

It is hard to believe because it would be impossible. The explanation lies elsewhere. I recommend delving into the process referred to as 'task compartmentalisation'. The vast majority of NASA employees are never in a position to actually verify that the purported feats of this agency actually occur(ed).