I just had my first browse through this website. Amusing entertainment! Most of the "proofs" are written by uneducated ppl for uneducated ppl. Check theese out:
This is a "proof" for fake lighting on the "moon" The shadows are cast in different directions and there is a "spotlight" to the far right.
Somebody slept in school or what? The shadows follow basic perspective laws. We can clearly see that the picture are sticked together by three smaller pictures, one to the right, on in the centre and one to the left. The pictures where taken with a camera on a tripod, then sticked together. anybody can see the two "seams". The "spotlight" is in the centre on the right hand picture. Note that it is in the exact centre. Over exposure in the centre of an image is not unusual.
Look at the shadow of the photographer. It is vertical. This prooves that the photographer had the sun in the back when he took the picture. The shadow of the flag leans to the left and the flag of the LEM leans to the right. The crater on the far left is hit by light form the left.
As you understand, the sun is distant and the shadows are parallel. What happens with parallel lines in a perspective? They leans towards each others and joins in on point! If you draw lines from the shadows, you will see that all shadow directions are correct and that there is only one lightsource.
This Is a really funny video too. The flag "blows" in the wind. What happens with a flag equipped with a wire along the top edge when it blows in the wind? First, the wind fills the lower parts of the flag, then the upper part with the wire follows. In the clip it can clearly be seen that the top of the flag comes first, then comes the bottom. The movement of the flag must originate from a rotation of the pole. And otherwise...there's absolutely no sign of air resistance. The flag would bulge and ripple if it was affecte by wind. I have studied cloth for 3d-animation purposes, and there is no cloth that behaves like that when affected by air resistance.
This image can be explained simply. There's probably a slope that makes the shadows of the rocks in the front appear strange. Claiming that the shadows is a proof of two lightsources is plain supid.
Another slope problem. How could the shadow of the dude to the right be taller than the shadow of the dude to the left?
The guy who wrote the page claims that the lightsource is close to the two astronauts. One astronaut is standing near the lighsource, then angle to it is different and the shadow should therefor be shorter. But the worng shadow is too short damnit! If there was a lightsource close to the astronauts, then the shadow of the dude to the left would be shorter than the shadow of the dude to the right, not the other way around.
This is all about a slope. The author of the page claims that the shadow should bend at the beginning of the slope. As you may see, the shadow is straight and nice...But take a look at the austronaut. His legs are slightly bent, but the shadow is straight. Howcome? The Shadow is bent. The angle of the knee joints nullifies the bend effect of the shadow. Also, look at the length of the shadow's legs. The legs seams way too tall compared to the shadow of the torso. The only explanation is that there is a slope. No close lightsource can distort a shadow that way.
Well...the front of the astronaut looks a little bit too bright, does'nt it? Yeah, i must admit that it looks strange..but don't forget that the suits of the astronauts are white. The article claims that the surface of the moon only reflects 7% of the sunlight. It also says that the astronaut should be as dark as the front on the little rick to the left.
Let us assume that the reflectivity of the rock is 7% aswell. But can we assume that the reflectivity of the astronaut is that small? O don't think so. The white siut should have a pretty high refelctivity. A reflectivity of 100% would make the astronaut the same color as the dust. As you may see, the lower part of the dude is darker than the enviroment. It is posible that the light on the front of the astronaut is reflected from the ground. The statement that the astronaut should be as dark as rock in the shadow is plain stupid becouse the suits reflects a lot more light than the enviroment. It is also believable that the earth adds to the light. Why no shadow from the earth? the earth is big. Big lightsource means smoother shadows. The shadow cast by the earth is simply too subtle and too smooth to be visible.
And, i saved the best for the last...this actually made me laugh out loud...
The article says "In Ron Howard's 1995 science fiction movie, Apollo 13, the astronauts lose electrical power and begin worrying about freezing to death. In reality, of course, the relentless bombardment of the Sun's rays would
rapidly have overheated the vehicle to lethal temperatures with no atmosphere into which to dump the heat build up."
What the hell does a science fiction movie have to do with a real world event?? They could as well tell that the moon landing is fake becouse the transporters in StarTrek wouldn't work in reality. lol!