Moon videos, WTF?

I'm not posting this to open up a debate about wheter or not the moon landings occured. I'm just asking for opinions to explain observations in these sets of videos, and how they might relate to wheter we did land or not. That sounds like it contradicts itself, but it doesn't.

www.firstscience.com...

For the first video, the commentary on the page says that the last section was shot from dec 21-27 1968. In the video, the person speaking says that they are flying over the moon at about 60 miles or so. Was this entire portion taken while flying over at 60 miles? I ask this because, one of the shots shows the moon surface in the forground, where we can see that half of the earth is in light, and half is in dark, North and south roughly run from left to right on the monitor. but then, there is another shot, of the earth, over Africa, where about 99.9 percent of the earth is in light.

Now, i was thinking about this, and it may be able to explain away, but i just can't figure it out!!! Someone just answer if this is possible. If the shot was taken while still flying very close to the moon, 60 miles above the surface, then HOW do we get a shot of the side of the earth in full light? in the shot, you can see the south pole at the bottom, which shows the shot is taken slightly below and to the right of the earth. In order to see a side of the earth fully lit up, wher the light takes up about half the earth, wouldn't you have to be somewhere between the earth and sun, near the center of that axis? If so, and the moon is only 60 miles away, wouldn't that cause an eclipse...because the moon would also be between the sun and earth? I understand that the angle is slightly down, but is it down far enough for the moon to not cast a shadow? I could be way off on this, but i'm confused and asking for help.

In the second video, at around 1:46, we see an astronaut, (dumb joke of the day from me, ok i'm done hehe), jumping around the moon. The moon dust he kicks falls back to the ground at the exact same time he does. Now, the particles appear small enough to be effected by air, so on earth these dust particles would fall back slower right? It looks like they are being kicked up in a near vacuum atmosphere. Now to offset this, and make them fall at the same time, if it were staged, the astronaut could be attached to wires, and his downward movement slowed. However, those must have been some pretty damn syncronized wires.

At a decent distance, the view of his shadow is pretty good.
What i'm thinking here, is if you draw a line down the center of his shadow from it's base, that runs parallel to the shadow, the line travels off into the distance and hit some random spot, for me on my screen, i'ts about 1mm below the darkened horizon...the flat ground, not the dunes. No matter where he is, even when he's close to the camera, and he has moved to the side, the line drawn through the sahadow ends up at the exact same point. You can check this out by holding a piece of paper up to the screen.

Why is this important? Well, when a light source is at a very far distance (the sun), the angles of shadows won't really change when you move around. However, if the lightsource is very close to you, the angle WILL change as you move around. This shows that it was probably filmed with the sun as lighting. Now, at various points, you can see the light source reflected in his visor, around the sun it's all black. Here on earth, can you get me a reflection like that with a black sky?

Some might say, well, the reflection is white, not yellow like the sun.
"THE BLACK SKY AND WHITE SUN
On Earth, the sun appears yellow. If you were out in space, or on the moon, the sun would look white. In space, there is no atmosphere to scatter the sun's light. On Earth, some of the shorter wavelength light (the blues and violets) are removed from the direct rays of the sun by scattering. The remaining colors together appear yellow. "

"Also, out in space, the sky looks dark and black, instead of blue. This is because there is no atmosphere. There is no scattered light to reach your eyes"

www.sciencemadesimple.com...

This all helps me believe this footage is real.

However, in the third video, at one point there's a video looking down on earth, with the space capsule in view. In the lower right corder, the space capsul appears to cast a shadow of sorts on the earth. A Very large shadow. Almost as if the earth was a model of some sorts. What is this dark square shape? it doesn't look like anything but a shadow, it's not in other footage, so i don't believe it's part of the space shuttle.

As you see i'm kind of unbaised, i asked questions that supported both theories. If anyone can help me with this, especailly the last question about the shadow, i'd love to hear your thoughts!!!



[edit on 28-3-2006 by xxvalheruxx]

Originally posted by xxvalheruxx
For the first video, the commentary on the page says that the last section was shot from dec 21-27 1968. In the video, the person speaking says that they are flying over the moon at about 60 miles or so. Was this entire portion taken while flying over at 60 miles? I ask this because, one of the shots shows the moon surface in the forground, where we can see that half of the earth is in light, and half is in dark, North and south roughly run from left to right on the monitor. but then, there is another shot, of the earth, over Africa, where about 99.9 percent of the earth is in light.

It's just various pieces of footage spliced together for this film/documentary. The part where you see the surface of the moon moving past the camera was taken from 60miles above, the rest is taken from other film clips.

However, in the third video, at one point there's a video looking down on earth, with the space capsule in view. In the lower right corder, the space capsul appears to cast a shadow of sorts on the earth. A Very large shadow. Almost as if the earth was a model of some sorts. What is this dark square shape? it doesn't look like anything but a shadow, it's not in other footage, so i don't believe it's part of the space shuttle.

I didn't see a shadow in the entire clip. What is the time on the clip that you see this?

The moon hoax idea has gotten to the point where almost anyone who knows about the subject has things to support the idea or things to argue against it.

One of the more interesting points people make is at the point of Lunar liftoff(decent also). The Lunar Module used Hypergolic Fuel as its fuel source. Hypergolic fuels work when two differnt fuels spontaneously combine and ignite on contact. The ones in the Lunar Modules main engine used dimethyl hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide which on videos of test firing produced a red smoke due to the reaction. If we look on both the decent images and lunar liftoff images and video we see no red smoke being produced by the engines. Im not a scientist of courses but thats one thing i always thought was peculier.


Im not a total moon hoax believer per say but I do think some things on the apollo record are strange. Theres several docu's out about Moon Hoax's but the only one I've come across that catches the eye is "What Happend on the Moon" which is 2hr +. I guess when the new Sat's are launched to the moon to prepare for the US 2018 mission and the Japan and China probes are launched as well we will finally know.


Peace

Originally posted by LifesRoyalPath
One of the more interesting points people make is at the point of Lunar liftoff(decent also). The Lunar Module used Hypergolic Fuel as its fuel source. Hypergolic fuels work when two differnt fuels spontaneously combine and ignite on contact. The ones in the Lunar Modules main engine used dimethyl hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide which on videos of test firing produced a red smoke due to the reaction. If we look on both the decent images and lunar liftoff images and video we see no red smoke being produced by the engines. Im not a scientist of courses but thats one thing i always thought was peculier.

I'm no scientist either, so I can't really explain in detail on how the chemical reactions work, but I would assume the lack of smoke has to do with the lack of an atmosphere. From what i've read about Unsymmetrical Dimethylhydrazine (say that 5 times fast) it absorbs oxygen, so perhaps when in an oxygen atmosphere it creates smoke and when it's not it doesn't. But again, that's just a guess on my part. It could be something else completely.

I guess when the new Sat's are launched to the moon to prepare for the US 2018 mission and the Japan and China probes are launched as well we will finally know.


Peace

I myself have no doubt we went. But I also don't think the latest satillites or missions to the moon will convince the hardcore hoax believers.