Where is the International Space Station? [Archive] - The Project Avalon Community Forum

DeDukshyn

11th July 2016, 22:44

Anyone can buy some binoculars or a relatively cheap telescope and see the ISS in orbit. I would really encourage anyone with the ability to save up a couple hundred bucks to do so and start the wonderfully peaceful and satisfying hobby of amateur astronomy!

I had one when I was younger and I'm really glad I did, I got to see the space shuttle in orbit and Halley's comment - the moon looked just awesome. I still have it and tried to use it the other day, but its almost 30 years old and badly needs collimation which seems not at all user friendly on my model so I never attempted it.
That said I still do want to get a decent scope for astrophotography (and when I do all my good photos will be shared on Avalon), but I'll need to get out of the city to get away from light pollution. When I get a little piece of land on my own, I'll build myself a little observatory, maybe invite some avalonians over for a little star gazing party .... :) ... one day.

If anyone does have some good binocs or a telescope (and a clear sky) the ISS' location in the sky can be tracked here: http://www.n2yo.com/?s=25544

At this link: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/02/28/ridiculously-awesome-pic-of-discovery-and-the-iss-taken-from-the-ground/ is a photo if ISS taken from Earth with an 8.5" telescope. Here's an 8 inch Dobsonian for $528 Canadian which is about equal to $17.92USD <-- not really but that's what it seems like lately ... Damn everything got expensive here the last few years. http://www.canadiantelescopes.com/shop-by-type/dobsonians/sky-watcher-traditional-8-dobsonian-with-free-2x-barlow-31020.html?___SID=U

Maybe someone can confirm if it didn't get shot down by UFOs :)

Gaia, any idea what was on the feed when it went out? Do you have any other contextual info?

KiwiElf

11th July 2016, 23:40

Hughe

12th July 2016, 01:03

KiwiElf

12th July 2016, 01:09

Possibly another UFO docking (or in the line of view) that NASA doesn't want us to see? ;)

DeDukshyn

12th July 2016, 02:42

...
Many observatories which have powerful telescopes should take ISS images and release them to general public. It's so simple to do it but why they don't do it?
...

Probably the same reason a telescope can't be used as a microscope ... just a thought. It's rhetorical, no need to respond to this.

dynamo

12th July 2016, 15:02

If you have some Astronomy software or access to it, (ie Redshift), you can download where ISS should be, along with any other satellites (excluding the "classified" ones). It's location is probably available on the net, too.
This is what I use, as an amateur astronomer/astrophotographer:
http://www.stellarium.org/
it is free, powerful, easy to use and I believe has ISS info built in or as an add-on.
Best part is it is open source, will control your telescope and is FREE! :)

ghostrider

12th July 2016, 15:18

There is a Chinese satellite with a decaying orbit, they think it collided with another satellite, not for sure what it struck... Maybe they don't want us accidentally viewing a alien craft that might be monitoring the decaying satellite ... The word is the Chinese abandoned the space station they were constructing which began in 2011... They wanted to build one bigger than the ISS...

Sunny-side-up

12th July 2016, 17:25

YaY all here who can please submit their personal ISS photo's, or any of the many orbiting objects hugging our Earth ' Avalon members Earth hugging orbiting object photo shots'
'Amehoops' :sun:

One thing to remember when we are talking about the PTB/W and any of these other Agencies especially those working in and around governments (governˈmentally, Control Mind) Black-Opps is that!
they are all dealing with ritual and or satanic entities or trying too, my point being they deal in illusion, more to the point 'Sorcery'

the art, practices, or spells of magic, esp black magic, by which it is sought to harness occult forces or evil spirits in order to produce preternatural effects in the world
sauce: http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/sorcery

So yes you can see something floating/orbiting around up there for sure, is it a Space-station, well I could not prove that, for all I know it's made of 'paper mache' Doh

DeDukshyn

12th July 2016, 23:54

Many observatories which have powerful telescopes should take ISS images and release them to general public. It's so simple to do it but why they don't do it?

Actually, I became more curious about this, and with some research and applied logic I determined that most large earth telescopes track at earth's rotational speeds (by design) and tracking at the speed which the ISS orbits would be increasingly difficult to impossible as the size of the telescope increases. The tracking is a requirement for any decent exposure time - which can be up to hours for deep space photos. So the telescope would have to be able to be small enough yet sophisticated enough to accurately track a high speed object, or photos would be impossible. Lot's of telescopes can track based on earth rotation speed, I don't know of any that can successfully track satellite orbits.

Yes, it is true that satellites reflect more light than stars and deep space objects give off so less exposure time is required, but the amount required would still make it very difficult to get a clear photot at those speeds. Even 1/4 second exposure would be difficult.

So very highly unlikely that a very large earth based telescope could photo a satellite or the ISS - they design these for deep space exploration and that is what they do - so my point about them not being a microscope still stands -- they aren't practically capable, as they weren't designed for such.

But then not being 100% satisfied with the very good explanation I just gave, "surely there must be some observatory capable of such a feat", so I did more research, this time I used Bing search to search this: "iss image from powerful telescope"

And low and behold! It is amazing what a little research does :) On the very first page of search results, I found a quite sharp photo of the ISS from Clay Center's Observatory. (click the blue hyperlink to see it full size)

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0706/atlantisISS_dantowitz.jpg

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0706/atlantisISS_dantowitz.jpg

But I heard they use photoshop. :noidea:

Sunny-side-up

13th July 2016, 07:55

KiwiElf

13th July 2016, 09:12

NASA 'shut down ISS feed' as 'UFO enters atmosphere'
Yahoo7 News Published 9 hrs, 37 mins ago (video @ link)

https://nz.news.yahoo.com/video/watch/32043783/ufo-spotted-enterting-earths-atmosphere/#page1

NASA has been accused of switching off its International Space Station live feed as a mysterious object approached the Earth’s atmosphere.

UFO hunter Streetcap1 raised the alarm on June 9 and uploaded the video to his YouTube account that same day.

In the video, an unidentifiable flying object appears to enter Earth's atmosphere moments before the live stream is allegedly cut.

The enthusiast didn’t specifically say it was an alien UFO, but instead implied that the object may be a meteor, adding it was strange the ISS suspended its feed if it were just that.

"What made it interesting was that the camera cut off when the UFO seemed to stop,” the alien hunter wrote.

Other alien fanatics believe it could be one of the Chinese space cargo ships, Tiangong-1 or Tiangong-2.

According to a spokesperson, NASA has never intentionally shuts down live transmission to hide UFOs, Mirror reports.

DeDukshyn

13th July 2016, 14:52

Hmm? ok DeDukshyn

And low and behold! It is amazing what a little research does On the very first page of search results, I found a quite sharp photo of the ISS from Clay Center's Observatory. (click the blue hyperlink to see it full size)

Did I say 'paper mache' well ok then 'Plastic-Airfix Model' maybe!

Yup, they spent billions rocketing life size plastic models of satellites and space stations into space to trick us into believing they have the technology to do it, when they really don't. The military industrial complex doesn't have advanced tech either -- all just tricks. And photoshop :)

PS Plastic would probably not be near strong enough - it would have to be metal and have appropriate weight to be able to remain in a proper orbit. So ... those life sized NASA models that cost billions to rocket up must be made of metal.

I heard there's no people in there though ... :)

The conspiracy further erodes ... I'm not saying NASA hasn't lied or made composite images, but it doesn't mean absolutely everything we perceive is fake. Well it is in a sense ... but that is a metaphysical argument about augmented reality -- nothing to do with ISS or Nibiru or a flat Earth either. The laws of physics may not be 100% constant, consistent, or accurate as we understand them (or often like to believe), but they are very persistent. That persistence within tolerance is why we can trust that gravity works, even when we don't understand it (for example). Reasoning based on this persistence is valid and appropriate. Physics only change on levels of vibrational scale - hence why sub atomic particles have their entire own set laws of physics - that are also persistent at that level.

Anyway the thread is getting a little derailed --> this argument belongs in that "other" thread. :)

:focus:

NeedleThreader

13th July 2016, 16:47

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/nasa-shuts-down-live-international-8408011

This looks fake but worth a look for an explanation.

seah

14th July 2016, 05:19

Wow, they'd rather admit to Ufos than have the feed on? Must be some nasty bug that needs fixing pronto...

KiwiElf

14th July 2016, 08:39

Yeah, but note the predictable disdain and mockery that the MSM still have for "anyone" believing in UFO's/aliens (even if it could be true?:rolleyes:

Other alien fanatics believe it could be one of the Chinese space cargo ships, Tiangong-1 or Tiangong-2.

astronomylive

15th July 2016, 13:30

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/nasa-shuts-down-live-international-8408011

This looks fake but worth a look for an explanation.

It's the planet Venus. It's truly shocking to me that no one else who reported on this story took the five minutes it required to figure this out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cnFRaafrlk

astronomylive

15th July 2016, 13:41

Why this counter argument is more convincing? http://www.wildheretic.com/hubble-and-the-international-space-station-hoax/
Many observatories which have powerful telescopes should take ISS images and release them to general public. It's so simple to do it but why they don't do it?

They do, and then lying defamatory sites like the one you just posted accuse them of faking it. I'm one of the many people listed on that site that they accuse of faking images. Well, I'm not faking it, and if I could force their eyeball into the eyepiece of my telescope as it tracks the station, I would.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E6bQcvT9W4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgoVGWazev8
https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7094/7404935596_60e41f43fa_o.jpg
https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4112/5033051806_e2536b9262_o.jpg
I've personally shown the space station to quite a number of people using my telescope, and there is nothing they can do to stop me.

seah

15th July 2016, 14:54

[...] lying defamatory sites like the one you just posted accuse them of faking it. I'm one of the many people listed on that site that they accuse of faking images.

It's become increasingly more difficult to know who to trust but it doesn't mean we should go about accusing people of faking information and or photos that are simply asking for what should be everyone's right as citizens, to have truthful information about the world they live in, from their government agencies.

We know NASA has not been honest with us, in fact, it has been postulated by many researchers that NASA is an agency that was established for the sole purpose of distributing propaganda. Does this mean that we should look at everything coming out of there as lies? of course not, disinformation is always easier to take in if it's mixed in with some truth, but some of what the FE community has brought to light does indeed need to be questioned. Why are we only being given CGI and cartoon like images? Why is data for satellites missing from international databases? Why so many inconsistencies with the global earth composite?

What we see with our own eyes and take as truth is constantly being manipulated for us. We know this from false flag events and what MSM shows. What is up in the sky can also be fabricated, can you say with certainty that it is not? simply because you see an object that looks to be like the ISS (because they told you), it doesn't prove that object is what they said it is, but hey, that's just what some of us are thinking, and everyone has a right to question their reality, especially these days.

See the following for how our skies can be used for "entertainment":

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?91554-Artificial-Meteor-Showers

astronomylive

15th July 2016, 19:10

[...] lying defamatory sites like the one you just posted accuse them of faking it. I'm one of the many people listed on that site that they accuse of faking images.

It's become increasingly more difficult to know who to trust but it doesn't mean we should go about accusing people of faking information and or photos that are simply asking for what should be everyone's right as citizens, to have truthful information about the world they live in, from their government agencies.

What part of this do you not understand? These are not innocent little snowflakes, they personally accused me of faking my images!!! They are defamatory liars and I will do whatever I can to expose them for what they are.

Does this mean that we should look at everything coming out of there as lies? of course not, disinformation is always easier to take in if it's mixed in with some truth, but some of what the FE community has brought to light does indeed need to be questioned. Why are we only being given CGI and cartoon like images?

Says who? You? Like the same liars who accuse my images of being CGI and cartoons?

Why is data for satellites missing from international databases? Why so many inconsistencies with the global earth composite?

You're speaking in vague general accusations without facts, without support, without proof.

What is up in the sky can also be fabricated, can you say with certainty that it is not?

You have shown no such thing. I do not accept your a priori assumption.

simply because you see an object that looks to be like the ISS (because they told you),

I can see it WITH MY OWN EYES THROUGH MY OWN TELESCOPE! They didn't have to "tell me" anything, I can see for myself it's the same object they show in their own images. Furthermore, its altitude, velocity, and position in orbit matches what it's supposed to be.

it doesn't prove that object is what they said it is, but hey, that's just what some of us are thinking, and everyone has a right to question their reality, especially these days.

It doesn't give them the right to accuse me of lying and faking my images, which is exactly what that site has done. So help me god, if I ever find the person behind those accusations I'll file a defamation suit against them for every penny they're worth.

seah

15th July 2016, 21:53

I apologize for having set you off, unfortunately, when I come across a topic I am interested in, I write how I feel always assuming that I am having an exchange of ideas with opened minded individuals who value the preciousness that it truly is to have the opportunity to do this on an international level, and that on the other side of the exchange I am met with people who can communicate without their ego leading the way.

My previous comments were not based on what ever personal experiences you are sharing here. They were based on Gaia's interesting thread.

Hughe

16th July 2016, 03:43

@astronomylive

Internet is wild wild west. I don't personally accuse or blame your photo images. Some individuals and experts fall into muddy information war. Each faction use their honest works to legitimize the truth or fact. There are hundreds of satellites flying around the Earth. You have taken so called ISS, the biggest manned satellite according to you. IMHO the image quality is poor compared to ISS images on the net. ISS is huge and there exists various types. Which one is real that contains six to eight astronauts? NASA knows it. Most general public believe it of course.

Even if ISS is real, it's waste of huge tax money and resources of major countries that support the program. For instance, wearing a monkey suit and chasing each other is disgusting behavior of astronauts. There is no professionalism of the astronauts. Live feed from ISS can't have CGI models on the screen, but they do it all the time.

NASA released high-resolution photos of Apollo Missions to silence NASA skeptics. Below is one of those photos.
Some folks stupidly believe in it as actual spacecraft.
Honestly it's a real size model made out cheap materials: papers, aluminum foils, wire, and etc.
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/369227main_aldrinLM_full.jpg

aviators

16th July 2016, 22:46

Interesting with all the satellites in orbit we never see one from the ISS. Hmm.....
33817

njCDZWTI-xg

Bill Ryan

17th July 2016, 00:57

Yetti

17th July 2016, 01:08

Why we can see stars everywhere in the sky even with an atmosphere in between, and the photos from the moon ....none. ??????

DeDukshyn

19th July 2016, 21:49

Why we can see stars everywhere in the sky even with an atmosphere in between, and the photos from the moon ....none. ??????

It's called exposure levels. The human eye can see a range of brightness (exposure) of about eight or nine f-stops (f-stops (or just f) is the standard unit of measure for the range of light brightness measurable by any camera). The best camera sensors can only detect a range of about three or four f-stops, maybe five at the most. What does this mean? It means that if the range of light intensity is greater than 3 or 4 f, then elements from the photographed image outside of that range will be missing - they will be either "crushed" (official terminology) into pure black, or "blown out" (official terminology) into pure white. (depending on which end of the range)

Starting to see the "picture"? - pun intended :)

So when you are in space and say taking a photo of the Earth, moon, or ISS -- the sun has to be directly shining on the subject, as photos don't work in the dark at all - light is the information medium in this regard, and photos either need lots of it, or very long exposure times (which don't work well for moving targets). Since the difference in brightness between a subject lit by direct sunlight, and stars billion of miles away is likely closer to 15 or 20 f-stops, one has to adjust the cameras exposure range so as not to "blow out" the subject - (earth, ISS, moon, whatever) - this forces the exposure to compensate for the brightness and thus "crush" all the dimmer areas of the photos into black - anything that is dimmer than 3 or 4 F-stops than the sunlit subject - namely all the stars.

This is easy to understand as the same phenomenon that keeps you from seeing stars in the day ... when the sun shines on the earth, everything is bright - human eyes are good for a range of about 9f but the difference between a sun lit object (earth for example) and the stars is far greater than that - as I said, probably in the 15f-20f range. That's why you can't see stars in daylight -- they don't turn invisible, there's no projector that turns them on at night, they get "crushed". It's all just natural light physics that have to do with the simultaneous light strength range of the receptor - whether that receptor is an eye or a camera.

Qualifications: Amateur and semi-pro photographer and videographer enthusiast, knowledge of some light physics, understands internal detailed mechanics of eyes and cameras, also, a know-it-all. :P

DeDukshyn

19th July 2016, 23:32

Interesting with all the satellites in orbit we never see one from the ISS. Hmm.....
33817

Do you actually believe that image represents scale? It's an illustration for illustrative purposes only.

Consider that LEO (low earth orbit) range from 160kms to about 2000kms above the earth and medium Earth orbits go out to 36,000 kms. There are ~2400 satellites in orbit - likely most are in LEO and MEO; we won't include geostationary orbits which are even much farther out - this will bias the results in your favour, but I'm ok with that - just keep it in mind :). Let's do some rough math to see how much "space" each satellite would have if roughly evenly spaced within this area that they are known to occupy in LEO and MEO.

I need to determine the total volume of the sphere space up to the top of MEO. Earth's radius is 8,672km and we need to add an additional 18,000 kms to that to get the radius we are after. We will then subtract the volume of the earth and the atmosphere up to where LEO begins, to leave us with our total volume of space that all satellites potentially occupy, and divide that by the number of satellites in orbit to see about how much space each satelite would have to itself if evenly spaced. This will give us a ballpark figure to evaluate the scale properly.

Let's start with the large sphere representing total sphere volume to subtract earth and lower atmosphere from:

volume = (4 Pi radius³) / 3 - solving for a radius of 26,672 units this calculates to: 79,479,542,169,554.44 cubic units.

Now let's calculate the volume of the space to remove (satellites won't go lower than a certain point - we need to remove that volume from the calculated figure above)

Using the same formula we need to solve for a radius of the Earth (8,672) + about half of altitude of the lowest LEO satellites (160/2=80). The result calculates to: 2,808,086,853,328.93 cubic units.

79,479,542,169,554.44 - 2,808,086,853,328.93 = 76,671,455,316,225.51 cubic kms of potential volume for satellites in LEO and MEO.

76,671,455,316,225.51 / 2400 = 31,946,439,715.09 km³of space for EACH satellite. Now when you take a picture with your camera, how far away in the background does a car size object become not visible in the photo? No more than 1km, I'd say, where you just wouldn't be able to see the car in the background of a photo.

Keep in mind I kept the bias in your favour, - that number would actually be larger had I done this more accurately.

... 31 Trillion cubic kms for every satellite if they were evenly spaced around the planet within the area satelites can occupy while in orbit ... 31 TRILLLION ... TRILLION! How far can you see??

I hope that answers your question. We don't need to "wonder" about all these things, people can, and have already figured it out, and I just did it again and explained my math (someone might want to double check my math though ;))

Memes and psyops are powerful; just blatantly believing the opposite of what is expected to be believed is no strategy to find the truth.

Qualifications: none needed - the math is pretty basic.

DeDukshyn

19th July 2016, 23:35

Honestly it's a real size model made out cheap materials: papers, aluminum foils, wire, and etc.

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/369227main_aldrinLM_full.jpg

Of course, what's really curious about this photo is the seemingly non-parallel shadows, suggesting two different light sources, not just one (the sun). (It's possible that it's the angle of the left hand landing leg that creates a kind of illusion, but I'm not at all convinced.)

http://projectavalon.net/369227main_aldrinLM_full_shadows_noted.jpg

I may beg to differ with you on this one Bill (on your two light logic, not the real / fake argument) ... do you have a decent explanation as to why if there are two light sources why nothing has two shadows? Are you suggesting a composite image perhaps? I would be keen to point out that while it is difficult to determine FOV (and thus perspective ratio) of that photo, perspective lines do converge (drafting and design education surfacing here), and much more quickly as the FOV increases.

looks like we derailed this thread pretty good ... hope OP doesn't mind :)

Note from Bill, not derailing the thread any further! The more I think about it, the more I think I was quite wrong... re this one image. There are many other images which really do seem to show clear shadows from two strong, local (non-distant) light sources. But that's a totally different discussion. :)

:focus:

The Following User Says Thank You to Bill Ryan For This Updated Post:

Dedukshyn (20th July 2016)

aviators

20th July 2016, 00:18

Interesting with all the satellites in orbit we never see one from the ISS. Hmm.....
33817

Do you actually believe that image represents scale? It's an illustration for illustrative purposes only.

Consider that LEO (low earth orbit) range from 160kms to about 2000kms above the earth and medium Earth orbits go out to 36,000 kms. There are ~2400 satellites in orbit - likely most are in LEO and MEO; we won't include geostationary orbits which are even much farther out - this will bias the results in your favour, but I'm ok with that - just keep it in mind :). Let's do some rough math to see how much "space" each satellite would have if roughly evenly spaced within this area that they are known to occupy in LEO and MEO.

I need to determine the total volume of the sphere space up to the top of LEO. Earth's radius is 8,672km and we need to add an additional 18,000 kms to that to get the radius we are after. We will then subtract the volume of the earth and the atmosphere up to where LEO begins, to leave us with our total volume of space that all satellites potentially occupy, and divide that by the number of satellites in orbit to see about how much space each satelite would have to itself if evenly spaced. This will give us a ballpark figure to evaluate the scale properly.

Let's start with the large sphere representing total sphere volume to subtract earth and lower atmosphere from:

volume = (4 Pi radius3) / 3 for a radius of 26,672 units this calculates to: 79,479,542,169,554.44 cubic units.

Now let's calculate the volume of the space to remove (satellites won't go lower than a certain point - we need to remove that volume from the calculated figure above)

Using the same formula we need to solve for a radius of the Earth (8,672) + about half of altitude of the lowest LEO satellites (160/2=80). The result calculates to: 2,808,086,853,328.93 cubic units.

79,479,542,169,554.44 - 2,808,086,853,328.93 = 76,671,455,316,225.51 cubic kms of potential volume for satellites in LEO and MEO.

76,671,455,316,225.51 / 2400 = 31,946,439,715.09 km3 of space for EACH satellite. Now when you take a picture with your camera, how far away in the background does a car size object become not visible in the photo? No more than 1km, I'd say, where you just wouldn't be able to see the car in the background of a photo.

Keep in mind I kept the bias in your favour, - that number would actually be larger had I done this more accurately.

... 31 Trillion cubic kms for every satellite if they were evenly spaced around the planet within the area satelites can occupy while in orbit ... 31 TRILLLION ... TRILLION! How far can you see??

I hope that answers your question. We don't need to "wonder" about all these things, people can, and have already figured it out, and I just did it again and explained my math (someone might want to double check my math though ;))

Memes and psyops are powerful; just blatantly believing the opposite of what is expected to be believed is no strategy to find the truth.

I appreciate all your math efforts. What makes no sense is the the ISS makes a full earth orbit every 90 minutes. I think? Wouldn't we expect to see some stationary satellites on some of these passes ? The oblique camera angle (in the video above)
would cover a vast variety of altitudes. Just saying..

DeDukshyn

20th July 2016, 01:00

... trim ...

I appreciate all your math efforts. What makes no sense is the the ISS makes a full earth orbit every 90 minutes. I think? Wouldn't we expect to see some stationary satellites on some of these passes ? The oblique camera angle (in the video above)
would cover a vast variety of altitudes. Just saying..

I'm fairly confident there are no stationary satellites in orbit. :facepalm:

Large satellites are car sized, how far away would a car sized object need to be before it was out of the cameras resolution? ... 31 trillion cubic kilometers - let it sink in ... Also consider what I wrote in my previous post on camera exposure ranges. There is no mystery here.

Bill Ryan

20th July 2016, 01:03

Interesting with all the satellites in orbit we never see one from the ISS. Hmm.....
33817

[ ... a lot of sound, basic math ... ]

I appreciate all your math efforts.

No, you don't. You didn't seem to understand a word he was saying (taking quite some patience and effort to lay out the logic).

If you'd understood, you'd not be asking those questions. And if you'd genuinely appreciated it but still not understood, you'd be asking different questions.

Memes and psyops are powerful; just blatantly believing the opposite of what is expected to be believed is no strategy to find the truth.

That nails it. One of the definitions of intelligence is the ability to evaluate data logically without reference to belief.

Mark (Star Mariner)

20th July 2016, 15:18

Having been a pro photographer for 10 years I also have the background knowledge to fully confirm what DeDukshyn said, re exposure levels. This can be demonstrated easily on earth. Just take any camera outside at night - capture an image with a lit foreground, and you will see no stars. It's all about contrast and the exposure levels.

I also never bought the parallel shadow arguments in alleged moon fakery, quite as DeDukshyn points out as well. For a start, if the moon landing images were shot in a studio with more than one light source, there would be more than one shadow for each object, simple as that. But there aren't. The reason for non-parallel shadows (in any picture) is that firstly the scene is subject to the perspective/position of where and how it is being viewed, secondly the nature and shape of the object casting the shadow, and thirdly and most importantly by the surface or angle of the surface it is being cast on.

http://photos.imageevent.com/datacable/apollo///shadows61.jpg

I believe there is and was a lot a fakery/doctoring of Apollo images, but the non-parallel shadows/no stars side of the argument really doesn't hold any water.