no man on the moon, page-63

Heremes,

Murdoch and News Corporation would be pleased to know that they are now being Government funded.

Funny, I used to think that it was the ABC (on 8c a day), and SBS, that were Government funded.

As for the moonlanding being a hoax, yes, I saw Capricorn One and Elliott Gould in the role.

I also remember watching all those Erik von Daniken's specials on ancient alien life on Earth of 25+ years ago.

But, then again, I also remember watching the Moon Landing (not on The Dish), but as a 2nd grader, some 600km north-west of Adelaide, in a little wheatbelt town called Wudinna, where sometimes it was easier to get a commercial TV signal from Brisbane, than from Adelaide, on a late Summer's day (and assuming prevailing atmospheric conditions).

But, then again, I also came across this little piece from the Marshall Flight Space Centre, Kids page:

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/News/2001/News-MoonLanding.asp
and
http://kids.msfc.nasa.gov/News/2001/News-MoonLanding.asp,
both of which talk about the Moon Hoax and NASA's views on this.

Approximately 3 years ago, there was also a part-works publication that was published on fortnightly basis that looked at all manner of hoaxes, myths, and falsities. One part in particular dealt with the alleged moonlanding hoax amongst other stories.

My point in all this - the hoax argument has been around for better than 30 years. Nothing new in that. What, however, is new is that despite the story being around, no new evidence on this has been presented in all that time (ie: same old facts). You would have thought that with scientific advancement out there, even more detail would have been raised by now.

Interesting also the source of your quotes.

The internet site in question was either:
1)
http://batesmotel.8m.com/ (last updated 1-26-99); or
2)
http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/; or

The comments reflected in 1) are set out below (and are as written by Heremes):
-----------------------------------------------------
"On the moon, there is only one light source, the sun. This is a shot of Buzz Aldrin and Neal Armstrong planting the US flag on the moon. If the sun is the only light source used by NASA on the moon, Aldrins shadow A shadows should not be so much longer than Armstrong's".

The comments reflected in 2) are set out below, including comments from 1), plus rebuttal addressing the shadow discrepancy:
------------------------------------------------------
"On the moon, there is only one light source, the sun. This is a shot of Buzz Aldrin and Neal Armstrong planting the US flag on the moon. If the sun is the only light source used by NASA on the moon, Aldrins shadow A shadows [sic] should not be so much longer than Armstrong's"On the moon, there is only one light source, the sun. This is a shot of Buzz Aldrin and Neal Armstrong planting the US flag on the moon. If the sun is the only light source used by NASA on the moon, Aldrins shadow A shadows should not be so much longer than Armstrong's

"Most of the difference can be explained by the fact that the moon's surface is by no means flat and judging by the brightness of the left portion of this image, the top of the left astronaut's shadow (presumably Armstrong's) is on a small rise, so appears shorter. The area right behind Armstrong is dark and is a small downslope less well lit by the sun from its low position in the sky, and that is the general area where Aldrin's longer shadow ends".

"Also, compare the height of the two astronauts. The image of Aldrin on the right is about 10% taller than that of Armstrong on the left. If the astronauts are the same height in reality, then this demonstrates the effects of perspective on the apparent size and length of features in the image compared to their actual size or length. The shadow lengths are about 20% different which can easily be accounted for by perspective effects and by local terrain effects".
-----------------------------------------------------