can anyone here explain why the shadows in pictures of the lunar landing are all cast in different directions?
367371
Found this explaination for your question:\n\n"Shadows cast on the lunar surface should be parallel. Some shadows in the Apollo photos are not parallel indicating more than one light source, thus the photos are fakes. \n\nAgain there is a sound explanation; it is a simple a matter of perspective. A photo is a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional world, hence parallel lines may not appear as such on film. We all know how lines on a highway appear to diverge as they approach the observer, yet we know they are parallel. Another important factor that comes into play here is the slope of the ground. Let's consider two shadows - one cast on an upward slope and the other on a downward slope. If viewed from the side, these shadows would appear to go off in different directions. However, if viewed from high above, they would be seen as parallel. In other words, looks can be deceiving. There is no evidence of NASA trickery here. \n\nThis photograph [see photo], taken on Earth, is an excellent example illustrating how perspective causes shadows to appear non-parallel when seen on film. In this example [see photo] the astronaut on the right is standing on a small rise. The sloping ground has caused his shadow to elongate and appear at a different angle than the shadow of the astronaut on the left. Also note, if two spotlights produced the shadows then each astronaut would have two shadows." \n\nFor more information debunking "fake" moon landing follow link
773542
it's because they use the moon to navigate.  artificial light confuses them.
466450
I was glued to the TV for those days, I know it happened.  \n\nAs far as the flag waving thing, if you notice the flag is fixed along the top by a straight rod and loose on the bottom.  This is because there is no air on the moon to cause it to flutter around.  The astronauts couldn't get the little rod to extend fully, so it appears as if the flag is waving.  Really, it isn't.
20255
I had always believed that it was the effect of light passing through differing layers of the atmosphere, but on doing a quick search to check my hypothesis, I found an amazing site on "The Moon Illusion" that systematically goes through and discusses an amazing number of different theories (and systematically negates pretty much all of them). Early on in the information, it says, "We know that this phenomenon is not a physical or atmospheric effect..." So much for my assumption!\n\nAfter many pages of discussion, it ends with the following words: The final word has not yet been written on this subject.\n\nYou have to check out this site -- it's pretty amazing.
169020
Just like ships, aircraft have position lights to indicate left (red) or right (green). Most things aeronautical stem from shipboard tradition and this is the case here. It helps to distinguish which direction the craft is flying at night.\n\nIt's is true that the flag is painted as if it were in a wind from the viewer right. If the wind were from the viewers left, it would appear correctly. (Just like on a real flagpole.)
1126649
Yes, everything's upside down from down under!\n\nIf you're facing south looking at an early crescent setting in the northern hemisphere, the Moon is on your right, and the Sun is further to the right (west), so the right (west) side of the Moon is illuminated.  From the southern hemisphere, you're facing north, and west is on your left.  The western side of the Moon is still illuminated, but now you see it on the left. The Moon, of course, appears upside down.
132360
The moon landings were real and there is overwhelming evidence for that fact. The "evidence" the hoax side always presents are truly laughable for those that have a little more knowledge in their brains than those that obsess about that Fox tv mokumentary. \nThey say that when the flag moves in some footage it is "proof" that it did so because it was blowing in the studio. What one can clearly see is the flag moving because an astronaut is moving it. \nAlso the absence of stars in the photos are supposed to be "proof" it is a fake. Anyone with a little knowledge of how a camera works can tell you why there are no stars. The moon is pretty bright. Right? In fact on the surface of the moon the sun shines twice as bright as it does on earth during the brightest of days. Now imagine standing in such intense light. If they had set their cameras to expose the, by comparison, extremely faint stars instead of the surface of the moon the film in the cameras would have recieved so much light the film would have melted, ruining the cameras. The purpose of the Apollo missions were to take pictures of the moon. Not the stars. We can take pictures of them from earth. Also stars would have been the easiest thing in the world to fake it the landing had been a fake. With a $25 billion budget you would think NASA could have afforded a script supervisor...\nI could go on and on and on but I have answered this question so many times. I wish people could just stop asking it. The only ones that claim the landings were fake are those that are really bored and have way too much time on their hands.
333816
moon moves in clockwise direction
800776
1.  Longer shadows\n2.  The moon's gravitational pull and the sun's gravity also\n3.  The sun\n4.  counterclockwise, west, east\n5.  D\n6.  The Earth's Rotation\n7.  The earth is at a slant compared to it's solar revolution, so the earth recieves more sunlight in different areas, and the earth's solar revolution isn't a perfect circle, AND the earth wobbles\n8.  The sun's reflection causes the moon to light up, and so the sun's position determin's the shape.\n9.  the earth and the sun and the moon have to line up in a linear fashion, perfectly, not just good enough for a full moon
1090141
Well, not a REAL man. It just looks like the moon has a face if you stare at it for awhile. It's really just the craters and landscape that gives the illusion of a "face."
536496
When the light from the sun hits the moon, it is reflected to us which causes "Moonlight". This is the same light and source that allows us to see a bit of the shadows on the moon. \n\nThe suns and moons position in relation to one another is also what gives us the phases of the moon.  When the moon is directly opposite of the sun (with Earth not being directly in the line of sight) this gives us our full moon. \n\nIn short, there is only one type of light on the moon, the suns light hitting the moons surface.
217005
as it is not possible to post pics i would assume that u understand\n1.Since the Moon has only one light source, the Sun, the shadows must be in line. But in this cases, it looks as if there are multiple light sources in moon, which is not possible.\n \n2.The foreground of many images of the astronauts on the Moon are filled in with light, while the shadows remain absolutely black, again proving that there are multiple light sources. \n\n3.There are no stars in the background from pictures taken on the Moon. \n\n4.In some images, a huge light source can be seen reflected in the astronaut's visors. This has to be a very bright, nearby source. There  is no possibility of external light source in moon\n\n5.How could NASA take TV images of the LM ascending on Apollo 15, 16, and 17 if there was no one on the Lunar surface to man the camera? \n\n6.There can't be any pictures taken on the Moon because the film would melt in the 250° temperatures. Any  film exposed to 250° would indeed melt at that temperature\n\n7.The LM engine was very powerful. How come it did not leave a crater below the spacecraft? Why didn't it kick up any dust when it landed?\n\n8.The footprints left by the astronauts are proof that the Moon landings are fake. This one is also essentially a two pronged argument. First, the Fox show charged that the LM engine was so powerful that the upper layer of dust should have been blown away around the LM, so there should not be any footprints. Others have charged that the footprints should not be there since in the absence of water as a bonding agent, they should not maintain coherent shapes and sharp outlines\n\n9.There is no dust on LM footpads. -- According to Kaysing and Fox, this is the strongest evidence that the Moon landings are faked. They allege that with the swirling dust from LM descent engine, the foot pads should be covered with dust\n\n10.The pictures below show that flags are waving. And they never will. The flag was on the airless Moon, just as we all knew\n\nTHERE ARE MANY MORE ISSUES ON THIS, \n\nBUT \n\nTHOSE ARE TOO TECHNICAL FOR US. \n\n  \n\n…..NEIL ARMSTRONG WAS NOT THE FIRST PERSON TO LAND ON MOON\n\ncheck the refrences on these sites
996857
Based on the information out there, I now believe that they never went  to the moon. There is no wind on the moon, yet the flag blows in the background. The angles of lighting do not match the way they are supposed to, unless lighting was set up...and an extensive amount. The temperatre that the films would have been subjected to, would have destroyed the pictures. And for the picture of the footprint on the moon, there would have had to have been moisture to create such a mark. If you take completey dry sand and try to make a castle out of it, what happens? It crumbles...any child who has been to the beach knows that you need a little water. so, anyone can believe what they want, but im going on facts :)\n\nps...dont mind my spelling
1087183
The moon has a side that always faces us! That's not always filled with light though. That's why we have phases of the moon.
410954
The Earth is round.\nObviously at lower latitudes you view the moon from a different angle than what you would at higher latitudes.\nSo that at the equater the moon when rising would look like a bowl from that angle in that phase.
968800
It is the shadow of the Earth or rather, the part you see is the part that is not in the shadow of the Earth.\n\nThe shape the moon appears depends on its position relative to the Earth and the Sun. Depending on the timing, the shadow the Earth casts on the moon will change.\n\nSince the orbits of the moon and earth are constant, astronomers thousands of years ago have been able to predict the shape of the moon depending on the date.
544347
You always see the same face, you can`t see the dark side.\n\nBut you can see the moon different ways up depending on where in the world you are...\n\ne.g. I live in the uk and am used to seeing moon a certain way up. When I travelled to Singapore the moon seemed to be on it`s side. When I went to Australia, the moon looked completely upside down.\n\nBut it was the same face.