Honestly, the more I come here the less hope I carry for any sort of sane expression of intelligence from the Traditional movement.  If it's not the moon landing being a hoax, then its chem-trails or 2012 or pole-shifting or FEMA camps or any one of three dozen other conspiracy theories.

The movement as whole is filled to the brim with people that seem to think that, because they are fortunate enough to possess certain truths of reality, namely those things pertaining to the Catholic faith carrying the infallible certainty on which we may safely rest our assent, that it somehow qualifies them to speak intelligibly in matters of science.  Worse still, educating oneself is impossible, because it seems there can be no appeal to any authority which has both competence and licitness in your minds.  It seems that the truth or falsehood of a fact is not predicated on actual reality, but on the religion, or lack thereof, of the discoverer.

What flows is an unconscionable mish-mash of pseudo-intellectual rubbish which is rarely cogent and, so far as I've experienced, never expressed in any manner which is formally testable.  Instead, the flotsam of ignorance is vomited, not for or of its own merit but as still more evidence of the vast, atheistic, Luciferian conspiracy to put women in pants, men in dresses, the mark of the Beast in our foreheads, and to poison men's minds into believing that the world is round, that water does not flow uphill, or that we are not the center of the universe in every possible respect.  Seriously, how dare you people spout this nonsense and open the holy Catholic religion to the incredulity of those it is meant to save?

Honestly, the more I come here the less hope I carry for any sort of sane expression of intelligence from the Traditional movement.  If it's not the moon landing being a hoax, then its chem-trails or 2012 or pole-shifting or FEMA camps or any one of three dozen other conspiracy theories.

The movement as whole is filled to the brim with people that seem to think that, because they are fortunate enough to possess certain truths of reality, namely those things pertaining to the Catholic faith carrying the infallible certainty on which we may safely rest our assent, that it somehow qualifies them to speak intelligibly in matters of science.  Worse still, educating oneself is impossible, because it seems there can be no appeal to any authority which has both competence and licitness in your minds.  It seems that the truth or falsehood of a fact is not predicated on actual reality, but on the religion, or lack thereof, of the discoverer.

What flows is an unconscionable mish-mash of pseudo-intellectual rubbish which is rarely cogent and, so far as I've experienced, never expressed in any manner which is formally testable.  Instead, the flotsam of ignorance is vomited, not for or of its own merit but as still more evidence of the vast, atheistic, Luciferian conspiracy to put women in pants, men in dresses, the mark of the Beast in our foreheads, and to poison men's minds into believing that the world is round, that water does not flow uphill, or that we are not the center of the universe in every possible respect.  Seriously, how dare you people spout this nonsense and open the holy Catholic religion to the incredulity of those it is meant to save?

The shadows were not ONLY multiple angles.  They were from the wrong direction, based on where the sun was located at the time.  
Objects, such as the Lunar Module, seen from the shadow side should
have been entirely black if photographed with the 70 mm Hasselblad
camera that had been allegedly attached to the chest of the astronauts'
space suits, but they were not;  they were backlit as though some
accessory lighting was used to bring out the detail, even though NO
SUCH ACCESSORY LIGHTING was part of the Apollo equipment on the
moon, as testified by many interviews.

Quote from: Neil Obstat

The shadows were not ONLY multiple angles.  They were from the wrong direction, based on where the sun was located at the time.  
Objects, such as the Lunar Module, seen from the shadow side should
have been entirely black if photographed with the 70 mm Hasselblad
camera that had been allegedly attached to the chest of the astronauts'
space suits, but they were not;  they were backlit as though some
accessory lighting was used to bring out the detail, even though NO
SUCH ACCESSORY LIGHTING was part of the Apollo equipment on the
moon, as testified by many interviews.

Let me address how simple minded and frankly stupid these two statements are:

1. Directions of shadows.

The statement supposes that the ground is perfectly plane.  Everyone knows that slope affects shadow directions and lenght as seen on this picture.  
The ground where they explored was not perfectly plane.



Take a walk and look around you. This can be observed on a daily basis.

2. Backlit

I almost fell of my chair on this one... How old are you ?

Anyway, everyone know that any surface (the moon surface namely) reflects light and thus becomes a light source.  The moon is such a source of light, that it lights us on earth at night !!!!!  Can't it not backlit the lander as well?

Vandaler, I'm not questioning the Moon Landing here, but your photo example does not address shadows in different directions, only that a slope makes them appear less that exactly parallel.

Quote from: Vandaler

Quote from: SJB

Vandaler, I'm not questioning the Moon Landing here, but your photo example does not address shadows in different directions, only that a slope makes them appear less that exactly parallel.

Fair enough.



In this case, they are not exactly parallel.  

Yes, and I don't see how this is any different from your last example.