The Apollo XI One Light Photography Workshop RELOADED

FUCK YOU NASA!!!

FUCK YOU NASA!!! (Think of the dynamic range that would have needed to be captured to be able to expose for both the bright lunar surface and the dark shadow side of the moonlander and make the shadows appear so bright without the use of fill light (and without overexposing the lunar surface).)

Back in 2009 I posted the Apollo XI One Light Photography Workshop where I showed how we’re all being fooled by those motherfucking assholes at NASA. With the death of Neil Armstrong recently, I thought it would be a good idea to bring this to your attention again. The fucking coward died without telling us what he knows. That he knows more about this is evidenced by the remark he made about great ideas that can be discovered and breakthroughs that can be made by those who can remove “one of truth’s protective layers.”

I have absolutely no respect for people like Armstrong. They’re fucking cowards. It’s because of people like him that we’re living in the fucked up world that we live in today. It’s because of the fucking cowards like Armstrong that this blog exists today. Except for Galbraith, all the fucking girliemen in this industry were too afraid to stand up against Canon Inc. You should be ashamed of yourself. All ‘o ya!! Remember this quote: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Especially if you’re into photography, the documentary below should be interesting, as it discusses many of the issues with the photographs taken on the Apollo “missions.” Like I argued back in 2009, there’s evidence those fuckwads at NASA used fill lights in their photographs.

Also interesting are the following two documentaries:

A funny thing happend on the way to the moon.

As the Technical Advisor, or Camera Guru if you prefer, at Canon USA, you know that stupid shit like this is not going to go unnoticed by me. I didn’t become the Technical Advisor around here for nothing. And instead of just showing you what I mean, I decided to do an online photography workshop instead. Workshops are so hot right now, everyone is doing their own, so I thought why not have one myself?

In this case the workshop is more about lighting. Lighting on the moon during the Apollo 11 mission. This is the kind of stuff the Lord of the Speedlights dreams of doing, but can’t, because he’ll probably lose all of his sponsors overnight. Me, I have Canon backing me so I don’t give a flying fuck. Since the astronauts on Apollo 11 didn’t bring any lights of their own, we really only have one light source on the moon: The Sun. So that makes our workshop a One Light workshop, not to be confused with Zack Arias’s One Light Workshop, which doesn’t come even close to what you are about to experience in a moment.

Okay so much for the intro, now let us start by looking at some of the pictures that were taken during the Apollo 11 mission and reverse engineer the light Strobist style:

Moon 1

This is a picture of the moon. It’s important to take note of the fact that the shadows are all pointing in the same direction, and that the shadow areas are pitch black.

Moon 2

Another picture taken by the astronauts shows the extremely dark shadows. Notice how the shadow side of the hills are totally dark. If you’d stand there you wouldn’t see shit in front of you.

Moon 3

Okay now this is the first picture taken by the fucking wankers who call themselves astronauts. In the top picture, notice how the shadow side of the moonlander is lit. Since there’s only one light, the sun, which is coming from the back of the moonlander, the side we’re seeing would be totally dark, just like the shadow side of the hills in the above picture. And yet, that’s not the case. Same with that white thing on the ground. But take a look at the rocks, their shadow sides are totally black. Some will say that the moonlander was lit by the surface of the moon, but why is the surface of the moon able to light the dark shadow side of the moonlander, and not the dark shadow sides of rocks, craters, hills etc.? Below there’s a simulated version of what the picture would have looked like with only the sun as the light source.

Moon 4

Even more bullshit from the motherfuckers who call themselves astronauts. The astronaut is coming out of the moonlander at the shadow side, and yet there ‘s so much light! Now how the hell is that fucking possible? Simple: There had to be more light sources when that picture was taken (red arrows). If you look at the orange structure, clearly there’s light coming from above. Perhaps an Alien craft flying by was giving some assistance? Below is how that picture should have looked like with only the sun as the light source.

Moon 5

Even more horseshit from the overpaid nutcases at Nasa. Again, the astronaut is at the shadow side of the moonlander, and lit like a fucking christmas tree. I wonder how sunlight was able to reach the astronaut behind the moonlander. Below is again the simulated version of what that picture should have looked like.

Moon 6

Notice again how the shadow side of the rocks and hills are completely black. Somehow the shadow side of the moonlander and astronaut are very lit. This shit doesn’t even happen at Disney World.

Moon 7

In this picture the shadows look believable, very dark and shadow side of the astronauts and flag are a lot darker, essentially black. But why does one of the astronauts have a much longer shadow? Also, is the surface of the moon gray or brown? Seems to me like the assholes at Nasa can’t decide.

Moon 8

Apparently sunlight really favored the astronauts and the moonlander during the Apollo 11 mission. Notice how the shadow side of the rock is completely black, and yet the shadow side of the moonlander and astronaut look a lot brighter. And where is the flag’s shadow? The cocksuckers at Nasa must think we’re all stupid.

Moon 9

The fucking astronaut is standing in the goddamn shadow of the fucking moonlander, how in God’s name is he visible, when the sun was supposed to be the only light source? Looks to me like those fucks at Nasa used a little fill light.

Moon 10

This picture is just awesome. If they decide to do some lighting workshops at Nasa, I’ll be the first to sign up. Hell, I don’t even care what it costs, I’ll take a second mortgage if I have to. If you can do this, you’ll never need to use a flash ever again. Compare this to the picture above with the 2 astronauts with much darker shadows. And the surface of the moon looks a lot more brown in the reflection. Hmmm…

Moon 11

All of a sudden the shadow side of the moonlander and astronaut look a lot darker. Looks like they moved some of the fill lights for this shot. Also notice how the solar panel is throwing a very dark shadow on the astronaut’s right foot. A small panel is able to black out part of the astronaut’s foot, and yet, when the astronaut stands in the shadow of the big moonlander in previous pictures, he is totally lit!

Moon 12

And this is truly magnificent. Forget Zack Arias, forget the Lord of the Speedlights, hell, forget McNally. Those guys are nothing compared to what Nasa achieved here using just one light source. It looks like the sunlight went in one direction, then actually made a turn and came back in the frame from a different direction. You would have to use String-theory to explain what’s going on in that picture. To keep it simple, I made a lighting diagram below the picture to show you how I think the lighting was set up in this case. Forgive me for spelling errors, I’m tired.

And that concludes this Apollo 11 One Light workshop. I hope you’ve learned something important from all of this and that this will make you a better photographer.

Required Reading:

100 thoughts on “The Apollo XI One Light Photography Workshop RELOADED

      • Mythbusters suck ass. They fucking overexposed their image to make the astronaut brighter. At the same time they fucking made the grey lunar surface appear bright white without detail. Yet, even while doing that, they still could not make the astronaut appear as bright as in the NASA picture. So in the NASA picture, not only is the astronaut brighter, at the same time the lunar surface also is darker with more detail. Now how the fuck do you balance these extremes without fill light, god dammit?

      • Look at this video starting at 32:00. Look at the big difference in lighting between the video footage and the still images. The video footage shows what you would expect: fucking dark shadows. Yet in the still images the astronaut is lit.

    • No matter what chuck, unless you were actually smart enough to get yourself to the moon and look at the footprints you will always be in denial.
      Are you aware that the LRO (lunar recon-orbiter) was able to take photos of the landing site? (yes of course this is fake too right).
      Are you also aware… chuck…. that during Apollo 11, 14 and 15 that they left retroreflectors for ranging experiments (that are still carried out to this day) to measure the distance between the earth/moon. I can already imagine the conspiracy crap you are going to come up with now. It honestly never ends with people like you.

  1. Oh poor Chuck. Looks like bashing D800 doesn’t give you hardons anymore. What about those huge phallic Saturn V eh? P.S. I assume those rockets are fake too.

  2. wow… I usually enjoy your rants, even when you are short on facts you are entertaining… but honestly, this is taking things a little too far. To attack a man who has just died and is unable to defend himself, and with the flimsiest of evidence is just ignorant. This goes beyond satire and and right to asshole I am afraid. I really hope you are not really one of those idiots that believe this, and that this is just a poorly thought out attempt at humour.

    • He had at least 50 years to defend himself. Where is he now goddammit?? Instead he left us with some cryptic remarks about truth’s protective layers, basically telling us we’re on our own. Since when does truth need goddamn protective layers?? Had he just spoken the truth he could have saved us a lot of issues. Fukkan wanker.

      • Hey Fake Chuck,

        There’s a more prosaic, albeit less explored, possibility after going thru all the evidences and analysis from documentaries:

        1. The Apollo mission was indeed successful, the astronauts DID land on the moon.

        2. The photos taken by Neil (with the Hassie that was then left back at the moon, with the film only kept and survived) were incredibly lousy. Neil wasn’t a photographer, wasn’t trained or prepared to do glamour shoots, and had poor compositions of images taken under extreme / poor lighting conditions.

        3. So, NASA decided to stage a perfect studio environment and tried to “reproduce” the actual footage. The artificial lighting, additional flash or lighting units all were positioned to be as close to the actual environments and positions of all elements. Of course, the results indicated that the reproduction isn’t 100% precise, and there you have it….

      • There’s an old parable that says something like: when a pickpocket meets a saint, he sees…his pockets. He did tell you the truth…you picked his pockets.
        I would call you a Wanker, a fucktard, an asshole, ofr any of a plethora of puerile frat boy terminology that you use, but I won’t.

    • Almost every single one of the ‘Fact’s’ listed on those sites was self perpetuating myth.
      Additionally, as someone who has actually used a high powered laser and pointed it at the reflector on the moon… we were really there. See previous Mitchell and Webb thing.

      • BAAAAAHAHAHA the reflector argument again. Dude, reflectors ARE NOT NEEDED to bounce laser beams off of the moon. Before NASA claimed to have put reflectors on the moon, they had already bounced back laser beams from the moon.

        http://apollofacts.atspace.co.uk/

        In 1946 scientists in the USA managed to bounce a radio signal off the Moon’s surface, and were able to calculate the precise distance of the Moon by the reflected radio signal. In the early 60′s NASA realized they could perform the experiment more efficiently, and accurately by using a high powered pulsed laser beam. In this scenario the laser beam is reflected back to Earth in the same way as Sunlight is reflected off the Moon’s surface towards Earth. On May 9 1962, (over 7 years BEFORE Apollo 11 was supposed to have landed on the Moon), a high powered pulsed ruby laser was successfully aimed at the Moon, and reflected back off the Moon’s surface to provide an accurate measurement of the Moon’s precise distance from Earth without any reflector being on the Moon’s surface. There is no laser reflector on the Moon, and never has been. NASA are using the same method today as what they were using back in 1962, and long before the fake Apollo Moon landing in July 1969. Incidentally NASA plan to use an even higher power laser on Mars to calculate distance. Have astronauts placed a reflector on Mars to bounce the beam back?

      • And regarding laser beams, did you ever wonder how it is that NASA can fire a laser beam from earth at precise angle to hit a small 50cm square reflector on the fucking moon? Do you realize what kind of precision is needed to achieve this??? Not to mention overcome/predict the distortion of the beam in earth’s atmosphere and still hit that fucking small target on the moon.

  3. Perhaps complete unveiling of the fact will take couple of decades more.

    U confide in Canon’s support ? Then u r a real goof. Under coercion from your government; they will testify against you if need be – take it for granted.

    U may be a good imaging expert (which I’m skeptical about) but; u know nothing about the unlimited power of the billionaire mafia. They can make u vanish any time without any clue or notice.

  4. Hi FC,
    I have a couple of brand new, foreign, concepts to introduce you to. Hope you enjoy.

    1. You’ve clearly never heard of the concept of “fill light.” That’s where light bounces off a surface and is reflected back, adding light to an otherwise dark area. Look at the picture of the backlit astronaut. In particular, look at the reflection in his mask. What do you see? A gigantic God-damned light source, that’s what you see! The surface of the moon is reflecting light back into the shadows. Do you think it just vanishes? From your modified picture, you clearly think it all just zooms toward face masks, going nowhere else.

    2. “But what about the deep shadows behind the rock/in the craters?” I can hear that almost blurting out of your mouth already. Well let me introduce you to the concept of “angles.” The craters and small rocks are very low — below the angle where much of the light source (the surface of the moon) can be seen.

    In the picture of the astronaut with the flag in it, notice how the heels of his boots are darker than the rest of him. Less light is making it down there. Angles. Perhaps a beginning Geometry class would help.

    I assume this is merely a troll post by you, because only a complete idiot would believe this crap.

    I await your theories about 9-11, what Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor on December 6, and where Barack Obama was really born.

    • HAHAHAHA oh god. Dude your theory sucks balls. In that same picture of the backlit astronaut, why are his feet also lit by the reflecting light from the moon surface??? HMM??? they are as low as the rocks right???? AREN’T THEY??????????? How is light reflecting off of the moon’s surface able to reach as low as the astronaut’s foot, but NOT able to reach the shadow side of rocks that are as low as and even higher than his foot?????????????? does the reflected light favour astronauts somehow?? And what about the small white bag looking thing in this picture?? http://fakechuckwestfall.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/moon3.jpg why is the shadow side of the white thing more lit compared to the shadow side of rocks????

      Speaking of 9/11, can you explain to me how it is that the Twin towers came down in 10 seconds at free-fall speed??? This means the lower parts of the building gave absolutely no resistance. How can this happen, unless the lower parts were blown away in advance similar to a controlled demolition? In case you can’t answer this, perhaps a few physics classes can help.

      • S=S0 + V0t + 1/2 gt^2… at 415m’s tall and g=9.81m/s^2 (Gravity) It takes about 9.2 seconds for an object to fall freely back to earth, by my count, it took about 15 seconds (give or take a few) for the first tower to collapse (as seen on youtube). I don’t know the mass of the buildings, or really their construction methods, but that definitely shows there was some resistance, so much so, that it nearly doubled the time it took for the buildings to collapse vs free fall… then there’s the indisputable fact from hundreds of footage sources, showing the building below the impact standing right up until it’s engulfed by the falling section.
        In fact, very simple dynamics can more or less null most of the arguments.

      • Dude, here’s a physics lesson for ya on WTC7:

        Regarding the twin towers, even the 9/11 commission report states the buildings fell at 10 seconds. Even if it is 15 seconds, it is only 5 seconds faster than free-fall in a fucking vacuum (!!!), which is WAY TOO FAST for a building to fall with all the steel and concrete floors giving resistance below. Something had to be blowing the lower portions away as the top came down. Explosives were used, just like in WTC building 7.

      • Since you’ve confirmed that yes, indeed, you do believe in that crap, then clearly you are a complete idiot.

        Please, tell us about the Kennedy assassination and how Osama is still alive.

      • Please elaborate next time on which tower you’re talking about. WTC7 is very different from the 400+m buildings I calculated for. Yes, in free fall in a vacuum environment, WTC7 at 226m’s would free fall in 6.8 seconds or there abouts.

        Additionally, the youtube video you linked doesn’t indicate anything other other then misrepresentation of data in the report. (As he put it, a gross over simplification of the acceleration in the fall of the building based entirely on the first 2.5 seconds of video).

        I have neither the time nor care to go into the details. As an engineer (mechanical), while the report may have been over simplified, I’m certain I can say with some authority, there’s nothing in any of that footage indicating the destruction was a result of human control demolition in any certain way.

        Additionally, while I can understand why the fellow was upset that with all the budget available to analyse day in and day out the destruction of the WTC7 building, it was not… and frankly, it would have been offensive if they HAD wasted all that budget on it. The building was right next door to the collapse for fucks sake!

        When you fart in an elevator, do you think you’re the only one who smells it?

      • No steel building can come down at free fall speeds without the use of explosives. Period. This was a controlled demolition. You can even see the squibs created by explosives exactly as in a controlled demolition before WTC7 comes down, and even for the Twin Towers.

      • Nobody suggested it did fall at free fall speed. What I’m saying is there’s no evidence to suggest any of those buildings were intentionally destroyed outside of the terrorist attack.

        Additionally, depending on the method of construction, it’s entirely possible for buildings to fall very fast, and clearly you do not understand just real world physics work.

        Please stick to photographic satire, and don’t get into this shit.

      • I say it fell at free fall speed or near free fall speed for the twin towers. That’s a fact. Buildings can fall very fast like that, not on their own however. In this case with the use of explosives. There’s TONS of evidence suggesting that 9/11 was an inside job (which it was). You can start looking here for some peer reviewed papers on the subject.

    • You don’t need an atmosphere to bounce light. Why on earth would you think that?!? Ever go for a walk in the moonlight? Where do you suppose that light comes from?

      The surface of the moon is one gigantic reflector. If it didn’t reflect light, we wouldn’t be able to see it.

  5. Perhaps you could explain to us why no foreign government with the technology to image the moon’s surface in high resolution has contradicted the word of the astronauts and all of the people and images and footage of the moon landings. There have been several very high resolution mapping missions launched in recent years, and the gear we left there shows up in the images. What motivation would Russia, for instance, have for going along with our hoax? Or China or Japan?

    Also, what are the odds of a conspiracy this massive lasting for over 40 years? Hell, Obama can’t keep a secret for more than a month. We know everything about the raid to kill UBL, even though that should be classified.

    • Bin Laden was dead years ago from health issues. This is a known fact unless you rely on the mainstream media to tell you the truth. The raid was just a publicity stunt. There was no bin laden. Which is also why they got rid of the “body” before anyone could ask questions. Conspiracies last even hundreds of years. 40 years is nothing yet. And listen pal, if NASA has an entire division that specializes in airbrushing out UFOs in images, then it’s easy for them to place gear they left on the moon in images as well. Russia, China and Japan would go along for the same reasons the media and others go along: they benefit from it and it’s in their selfish interest to go along.

      • Only one thing haunts me.

        It’s difficult to maintain a lie even between 2 persons. How come this huge lie is kept alive whereas thousands were involved with NASA for decades !

      • The majority of people are fucking cowards that’s why. They’ll keep their mouths shut and remain politically correct, afraid of what they have to lose. Just look at the whole shit with Canon Inc. in previous years which I reported here on the blog. People are afraid for their professional careers and/or are intimidated. This is why most whistle blowers are always retired old men who don’t have to be afraid of losing their jobs. Armstrong remained a fucking coward until he died.

      • so let me understand…you believe in UFOs from other worlds that NASA is hiding but you don’t believe man can land on the moon? hmmm!!

        as has been said before, once you wrote a fun to read article. since the d800vs 5diii stuff has faded you now have to post absolute rubbish to keep the attention on yourself. i’m assuming u aren’t a total idiot so u are posting this stuff to get a simple reaction

      • I don’t believe man landed on the moon with the piece of shit technology back in the 70s, no. If they did, they wouldn’t have had to fake it.

  6. To be honest, if fake Chuck can teach us anything at all, is to question our environment, wether is if Nikon or Canon suck balls or the DXO Labs have their heads right up their asses… it’s good to question our reality. It may be faked… of course it can be… Why? The american dream maybe… the “Keep the people (americans) happy and thinking they live in the best country in the world and we will be Capitalists (millionaires) forever” thing can happen guys… and yes, study real physics and real politics… and no… questioning the truth is not treason… sometimes it can be common (good) sense… Just to keep minds open to posibilities. Keep the good job, Chuck; stay sober.

  7. So nikon (no capital letter for you, nikon scum!) and Canon either doing so bad that FC here gave up on them, or they’re doing so good there’s nothing to rant about.
    Either way this place just became worse because of that.

  8. Hey FC, have you already heard about that incredible sensor Nikon claims to have put in their new camera, the D800? 2 stops more DR than the 5DIII? Must be a hoax, don’t you think?

  9. The shadows on the moon should obey the same laws than shadows on Earth: when there is more light, the shadows become harsher, and the sun plays this role. Also the light reflected from the Earth does hit the moon, so we do have a source of 2 lights on the moon, and thus we might be able to explain the difference of shadows. I’m pretty sure we can find out the position data of the moon at this time, compared to the sun and the Earth, and then finding relationships between the shadows of the picture, since we have 2 sources of light (a direct one from the sun and a reflector the Earth).
    How to find the position of the sun: http://www.math.niu.edu/~rusin/uses-math/position.sun/
    How to find the sunset at a given date: http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneDay.php

    Other than that, i am not really interested in conspiracy theories or finding the truth, it would probably make me depressed, but i think everybody is able to develop some critical thinking and see for themselves, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

    • The earth is indeed quite a bit brighter on the moon than the moon is on the earth. The earth is 4 times the moon’s size and has an albedo of about 39% vs the moon’s 7% or so. But it’s still a minor light source on the moon in daytime. The earth was high in the sky over the Apollo 11 site; you can even see it reflected in Aldrin’s visor in that famous picture of him standing next to the LM.

      The fill light in the picture of Aldrin descending the ladder is very clearly coming from below him, because it’s just sunlight scattered back from the lunar surface,

      • Even if you you want it to be phase coherent ? Stupid bitch xD Do you know the principles of light dispersion ? Yeah, light is made of electromagnetic waves…
        Buy a telescope and learn how to observe them and try ;-)

      • http://apollofacts.atspace.co.uk/

        In 1946 scientists in the USA managed to bounce a radio signal off the Moon’s surface, and were able to calculate the precise distance of the Moon by the reflected radio signal. In the early 60′s NASA realized they could perform the experiment more efficiently, and accurately by using a high powered pulsed laser beam. In this scenario the laser beam is reflected back to Earth in the same way as Sunlight is reflected off the Moon’s surface towards Earth. On May 9 1962, (over 7 years BEFORE Apollo 11 was supposed to have landed on the Moon), a high powered pulsed ruby laser was successfully aimed at the Moon, and reflected back off the Moon’s surface to provide an accurate measurement of the Moon’s precise distance from Earth without any reflector being on the Moon’s surface. There is no laser reflector on the Moon, and never has been. NASA are using the same method today as what they were using back in 1962, and long before the fake Apollo Moon landing in July 1969. Incidentally NASA plan to use an even higher power laser on Mars to calculate distance. Have astronauts placed a reflector on Mars to bounce the beam back?

      • You really ought not to make such firm pronouncements on things you haven’t a clue about. You just look like a fool. The returns from the moon prior to the emplacement of retro-reflectors required very high power lasers with long pulses, and the return pulses were stretched in time because of the varying distances to each part of the surface illuminated by the laser. The returns from the Apollo and Lunokhod reflectors (using much less powerful lasers that can’t see the bare moon) are less than 1 nanosecond long. This proves beyond any doubt whatsoever that they come from a small (< 1m) and extremely efficient reflector that can only be artificial. The pulse durations even vary over the month as the moon librates and the earth moves a few degrees in the lunar sky. Bet you didn't know any of this, did you?

  10. This site is complete bullshit stupid conspiracy boy… Try to observe the mirrors yourself and shut the fuck up. You are too arrogant to try it ;)
    But with all the shit that you’ve wrote on your blog, you have lost all credibility.
    Good luck faky ;)

  11. Wow, Canon’s standards must be really low if they’ve hired you as a technical “expert”. Because you don’t seem to understand the first principles of lighting in photography — angles, reflectivities and exposures. Others have explained why shaded objects well above the ground — like a standing astronaut or the LM — received backscattered light from the lunar surface while those on or below the surface — like craters — receive none. One would have thought that utterly obvious, but apparently conspiracists like you are too smart to figure this out.

    In the famous picture of Aldrin standing in the crater, bear in mind that he was right next to the north side of the LM — in full sunlight. It made an excellent fill reflector.

    If you look closely at the picture of Aldrin descending the ladder, you’ll note that the surface in the background is overexposed. Armstrong opened the f-stop on his camera for the shot in the shade just as he was trained to do, and just as every photographer who has ever set a manual exposure has done. You must not be much of a photo expert if you don’t understand the need to increase exposure in the shade.

    Oh, as for the white reflection on Aldrin’s boot? Simple. Armstrong was standing just a couple of meters away — in the sun. You’re seeing his reflection off the smooth surface of the boot.

  12. People like Chuck tend to think they’re the smartest humans who ever lived, and since they haven’t the faintest clue how to go to the moon, they assume no one else could either. So it’s quite natural to conclude that Apollo must have been a hoax.

    Remove their assumption of intellectual superiority, and their entire reasoning collapses.

  13. The laser reflectors are complete and utter bullshit. There are no laser reflectors on the Moon, and never have been. I urge you all to take a look at the Youtube video entitled APACHE POINT BS. It really makes a complete laughing stock out of NASA and idiots who believe NASA lies.

      • At least I have what is known as common sense, something which you are lacking. Every sane, sensible person on this planet know’s the Apollo Moon landings were faked, everyone that is except people with a shit brain. You must be completely fucked in the head if you believe men landed on the Moon. Bye bye fuck brain, have a nice day, or in your case a nice fantasy day.

      • I am always amused when hoaxers invoke “common sense” when they’re totally unable to provide any rational arguments backed up with empirical evidence. They almost seem to think that uninformed intuition is superior to an actual understanding of math, physics, history and other subjects gained through years of study. If “common sense” were all we humans needed, we wouldn’t have to spend so much money on school systems. We could all go back to living as we did in the 16th century.

        Apollo denial is one of the purest manifestations of the stubborn streak of anti-intellectualism that still runs rampant today even in the United States. Apollo is one of the greatest intellectual achievements in recent history. It inspired many kids (including me) into rewarding careers in science, math and engineering but it seems to have the opposite effect on a few people who apparently feel threatened by people with talents, knowledge and achievements they lack and cannot understand. It’s really too bad.

    • The problem with common sense is that it isn’t very common. And what many uneducated and ignorant people like you refer to as “common sense” is quite often flat wrong. Once upon a time, people said it was “common sense” that the earth was flat, remember?

      I know it’s hard for you to accept that humans really did land on the moon because you personally haven’t a clue how to do it. But if you just let go of your assumption that you’re the smartest human who ever lived, it becomes possible to realize that a lot of people much, MUCH smarter than you made it happen.

  14. I forgot to include this comment. Be sure to read the text supporting the video, it proves there can be a difference of 196 thousand kilometres between one laser shot, and a further laser shot 40 minutes later. Those nutters who believe there is a laser reflector on the Moon say it can resolve down to an accuracy of 1 millimetre, and yet here there is a difference of 196,000 kilometres. You just gotta laugh at the BS from these Moon landing believers. Years ago people took the piss out of lunies in the asylum, now they take the piss outta them in Internet forums.
    APACHE POINT BS on Youtube, go get it.

    • AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA thanks man, I made that point earlier in the comments here, but these morons just won’t listen to facts. They’d rather believe NASA can fucking fire a laser and hit a 50cm2 rectangle on the fucking moon. BAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. jesus fucking christ, how retarded do you have to be to believe this crap.

      • You haven’t done your homework, have you?

        No, they don’t fire a laser and hit a 50 cm^2 rectangle on the moon. The laser spot is actually several km wide when it reaches the moon. The reflector intercepts a small portion of this and returns its photons to the earth.

        Don’t think it’s possible? Well, then I guess you must think GPS and satellite radio and TV are all hoaxes too because the antennas are so tiny compared with the areas covered by the satellites. Why, just look at those tiny antennas on GPS units — smaller than the lunar reflectors — supposedly receiving signals from satellites that each light up half the earth — rather than just a spot a few km wide!

        You could save yourself some embarrasment and learn the physics and math behind lunar ranging BEFORE you pronounce judgment on the topic.

      • Hi Chuck You are wasting your time with these morons who continually find excuses for NASA. It doesn’t matter how much hard evidence of fakery you put before them they will always reply with the most absurb and ridiculous comments. I gave up many years ago. I don’t know how those nutters will react when the truth of a hoax comes direct from NASA, I reckon they will become depressed, and suicidal to suddenly find out that their lifelong fantasy was a big lie. Take a look at the second comment on http://apollofeedback.atspace.co.uk
        You will also find comments from people who worked on the Apollo program, and they state that it was faked.

    • That video is embarrassingly uninformed. FIrst of all, Apache Point isn’t even affiliated with NASA; it’s an independent university using facilities on the moon open to all. Yes, there were some experiments bouncing lasers directly off the surface before Apollo. They had to be much more powerful than the current ones, and their accuracies were poor. That’s exactly why artificial reflectors were proposed and given such a high priority that one flew on the very first moon landing, Apollo 11.

      And yeah, the range to the moon does change by hundreds of km while its being ranged, due mainly to earth rotation just as stated. Yet the distance can still be accurately measured to a resolution of a mm because that changing distance is easily and accurately MODELED mathematically. The predicted and actual distances are so close that the difference is only on the order of a mm, and that’s what’s being measured.

      To see how silly your claim is, consider that GPS satellites, which are NOT in geostationary orbits, can measure your position to a few meters and your velocity to 1 m/s or less despite constantly moving relative to you by many meters per second. That’s because the effect of that motion is easily modeled out by orbital mechanics, something you have no clue about.

      geostationary orbits,

      • Look man, the fact of the matter is that scientists were able to do all of this BEFORE Apollo supposedly put reflectors on the moon. The fact that laserbeams are being reflected back does not prove reflectors are on the moon. Even if reflectors were on the moon, it doesn’t prove astronauts put them there either. So fucking forget about the goddamn reflectors.

      • Hi Fuck Brain. So what’s the point of resolving down to 1 millimeter when there is a difference of 196,000 kilometers between each laser shot? You now say the video is embarrassing. Jesus you Apollo Nutters find excuses for all of NASA’s bullshit don’t you. That fat colored woman in the video is a space scientist who believes NASA bullshit of landing on the Moon, so why don’t you contact her to say that the video is embarrassing. Isn’t ANY video which makes reference to men landing on the Moon embarrassing?

      • Hi Fuck Brain. So what’s the point of resolving down to 1 millimeter when there is a difference of 196,000 kilometers between each laser shot? You now say the video is embarrassing. Jesus you Apollo Nutters find excuses for all of NASA’s bullshit don’t you. That fat colored woman in the video is a space scientist who believes NASA bullshit of landing on the Moon, so why don’t you contact her to say that the video is embarrassing. Isn’t ANY video which makes reference to men landing on the Moon embarrassing?

      • Wrong, Chuck. There is a huge demonstrable difference between the pre-Apollo experiments and those using the Apollo and Lunkohod reflectors. First, the return signals are far stronger off the artificial reflectors. Apache Point gets no return at all unless they aim at one of the known reflector sites. Second, the return pulses from the bare surface in the pre-Apollo experiments were weak and many microseconds long, just as expected for a reflection from a region of the bare, rough lunar surface kilometers wide. But the return pulses from the artificial reflectors are only about 1 nanosecond long. That’s the time it takes light to travel only 1 foot, proving beyond any doubt that they come from small, highly reflective and therefore artificial structures.

        I know you may have trouble accepting these facts as they are quantitative in nature and cranks are invariably innumerate, but if you know even the basics of photography (which seems doubtful) you ought to know SOMETHING about the importance of numbers in the real world.

      • Hello “shitscared”, I am referring not to the video itself, which is fine. I’m referring to the commentary by its Youtube poster claiming that the reflectors aren’t on the moon. The fact is that they are, and the stubborn ignorance of those who deny Apollo (like those who deny the Holocaust, another historical fact) is what’s truly embarrassing.

        As I said before, I assume you accept the reality of GPS, right? (Or maybe you’ve been under the same rock for 40 years that’s kept you from accepting the reality of the Apollo missions). The GPS satellites are constantly moving at 14,000 km/hr relative to the earth, causing each range measurement to change drastically from the last, yet your unit can still determine your position to a few meters. Gee, how can that be?

        It works, just as lunar ranging works, because what’s being measured is the difference between a predicted distance and the measured distance AT A GIVEN INSTANT. In the case of civilian GPS receivers, it’s a few meters. For the Apache Point LRRR experiment, it’s as low as a millimeter. Whether you accept it or not.

        It’s because the receivers have a model for

  15. More BS from Apollo nutters. The GPS satellites do not determine your position you idiot. Your position on Earth is plotted by the GPS unit you hold in your hand, and how that unit can receive the signal from at least 3 orbiting GPS satellites, using triangulation to compute your exact position on Earth. GPS is not the same as reflecting laser/light beams. Jesus, the BS you Apollo nutters spout all the time, is more ridiculous than the BS we get from NASA.

    • Once again, you miss the point completely due to your utter lack of understanding. You complained that it was meaningless to measure the earth-moon distance to a resolution of 1 mm when that distance changed so rapidly due to the rotation of the earth and the motion of the moon in its orbit. My point was that the distances between you and the GPS satellites ALSO changes very rapidly, on the order of thousands of meters per second even when you’re stationary, and for the very same reasons: the rotation of the earth and the motion of the GPS satellites in their non-stationary orbits.

      Yet GPS is able to measure your position to an accuracy of just a few meters (with special units able to do much better than that).

      If you put aside your paranoia and rage (possibly with psychiatric help) you could learn quite a lot, and you might even surprise yourself at how much more satisfying it can be to learn new things instead of raging against every technical accomplishment you can’t understand because the people who do it make you feel insecure.

    • Oh, and by the way it generally takes FOUR GPS satellites, not three, to determine your position. That’s because four unknown variables have to be determined: your position in three dimensions plus the time error in the clock in your receiver (time being the fourth dimension). Only if the receiver knows your altitude ahead of time (e.g., if you’re on the ocean) can three satellites suffice.

      • Oh, and by the way it generally takes FOUR GPS satellites, not three, to determine your position.

        Jesus are you still talking out of your fucking arse.
        TRIANGULATION means 3 you knobhead.

      • So where did you get the idea that GPS works by triangulation?

        Sorry, but my facts are correct, as you can see from any number of references. The Wikipedia article is as good a starting place as any. Quoting:

        “Although four satellites are required for normal operation, fewer apply in special cases. If one variable is already known, a receiver can determine its position using only three satellites. For example, a ship or aircraft may have known elevation.”

        Which is exactly what I said.

    • Well, I wouldn’t use exactly that language, but I certainly understand the sentiment. Note how Chuck completely ignores any and all responses that demolish his claims with actual facts and reasoning. He responds only to personal insults.

      I do run into others who say the same things; i.e., Chuck is hardly an original thinker. Not only does he buy into every conspiracy theory that comes down the pike (note his references to 9/11) but he rages at anyone more talented, knowledgeable or accomplished (which gives him a LOT of targets!)

      Apollo deniers think of themselves as the smartest humans who ever lived, yet through willful ignorance or actual stupidity they haven’t a clue how Apollo worked. So they MUST deny it to avoid intolerable cognitive dissonance; even public ridicule and scorn is preferable.

      Denying Apollo also lets them think of themselves as crusaders for truth and justice and the most moral (not just the smartest) humans who ever lived.

    • Really? I keep hearing that from Apollo deniers, but when I ask “When?” they never seem to have an answer beyond “real soon now”.

      I won’t hold my breath. Especially since I’ve studied quite a few Apollo systems (I’m an engineer), understand most of what I’ve read, and have yet to find anything that couldn’t work just as advertised.

  16. People who still believe in the Apollo Moon landings, are victims of the the CIA mind control program known as MKULTRA. The CIA encouraged drugs like LSD in the 60′s as a means pacifying the masses, and keeping them happy and content. The powers to be inside the USA, ie, the CIA were paranoid that American citizens might rise up and rebel against authority, leading to Communism like what happened in 1917 Russia. That’s why they banned Communism, in the USA but even so its people could still rebel, especially as moral amongst Americans from the mid to late 60′s was at an all time low. What was needed was something to instill pride into Americans and give them a “feel good factor” which would last for many years. As most Americans now had television in their homes the CIA realised that TV could be used as a “brainwashing” tool. If people wanted some event to happen that would keep them happy and content, and then were shown a film of that event happening, then that would be enough to keep them convinced it did happen and so make them content and anti-rebellious for many years to come. Look at all the films and TV programs about brainwashing in the mid to late 60′s, ie, Clockwork Orange, The Ipress Files, and The Prisoner. Problem is those who still believe the Apollo Fairy Story after all the evidence it was a lie, probably have serious brain damage as a direct result of this CIA brainwashing.

  17. I think we can finally say that the Moon missions were faked, and it Is case closed now. Only problem now is that those Apollo believers have irreversible brain damage as a result of the CIA using TV to brainwash the masses. Now you know why CIA director Richard Helms destroyed the MKULTRA files in 1973, IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE LAST APOLLO MISSION. Read more about it at:- apollotruth.atspace.co.uk

  18. Pingback: GIZMODO Sucks Ass: Moonlandings were FAKED | Fake Chuck Westfall

  19. If you fuckwads want to see what shadows on the moon would really look like, watch this movie:

    It’s a goddamn fucking shame that they were able to simulate the moon using CGI more realistically than those fucking assholes at NASA.

  20. Why so angry all the time? You discredit yourself with profanity. Calm down, and make arguments like an intelligent person

  21. Pingback: Edward Snowden is a fucking Hero | Fake Chuck Westfall

  22. Have you really never heard of dodging and burning? Why would NASA release raw prints that look like shit? Certainly it would have been easy to create a single good print in the darkroom then copy that print.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s