PDA

View Full Version : Moon Hoax myth (Oh no, not again!!) Just a quick question.



Staiduk
2008-Sep-28, 11:28 PM
OK; so I'm just watching the Mythbusters episode where they're testing the Moon Hoax myths and finding - to everyone's shock, I'm sure (sigh!) - that the CT's ideas are garbage.

I just have one question regarding one of the stupider myths: about the non-parallel shadows.

What seems surprising to me is that I've never seen an obvious counter-question to the myth. The myth states as we all know that the shadows are non-parallel; therefore there must have been two liht sources.

What I'm curious about is the fact that the answer is always the topography - which is correct, but no-one has seemed to ask the CT's a counter-question: If there are two light sources, then why aren't there two shadows?

I couldn't help wondering if there's a situation where you could have two sources but not two shadows. I can't imagine how; it's just I've never seen that point made; so thought I could be missing something. :)

Cheers!

cjameshuff
2008-Sep-28, 11:38 PM
What I'm curious about is the fact that the answer is always the topography - which is correct, but no-one has seemed to ask the CT's a counter-question: If there are two light sources, then why aren't there two shadows?

I believe the CT's idea is that they were spot lights. There would be double shadows in areas of overlap, but they could be hard to see.

Staiduk
2008-Sep-29, 05:22 PM
I believe the CT's idea is that they were spot lights. There would be double shadows in areas of overlap, but they could be hard to see.

Hello again and thanks. The explanation doesn't really satisfy though. CT's are willing to bring out all sorts of pseudoscience and call it 'research' and then say it's hard to spot two shadows? It doesn't make sense - though to be fair; little of what I've heard of the hoax makes sense to me; it seems they're trying to magnetize Occam's razor. :)

(shrug) Sorry. I don't know any advanced sciences so all I can use is common sense and a certain deductive flair - which so far have been enough for me as far as the moon hoax goes. Really - I honestly can't understand why people believe this junk!

Cheers!

cjameshuff
2008-Sep-29, 07:08 PM
Hello again and thanks. The explanation doesn't really satisfy though. CT's are willing to bring out all sorts of pseudoscience and call it 'research' and then say it's hard to spot two shadows? It doesn't make sense - though to be fair; little of what I've heard of the hoax makes sense to me; it seems they're trying to magnetize Occam's razor. :)

My experience: if it supports or appears at first glance to support their position, they'll use it, and they'll ignore even the most obvious things that don't support their argument. We don't see the spotlight edges or double shadows from overlap because they were really good and didn't make mistakes like that. We see unrealistic fill lights and multiple light directions because they weren't good enough to realize there was supposed to be just one direct light source.

If you want satisfying arguments...moon landing CTs are probably the wrong place to look.