Andy, I think you're spending too much time in front of the computer.
Lets think about this logically, in an overall sense. Not even about the idea of a conspiracy in general, but just about these pictures.
First, if the moon landings were faked, these pics would have been taken here on earth somewhere, correct? Probably out in the desert, and then the blue sky painted black and the color tweaked to have gray dirt instead of brown, right? If that is true, then what explains your "shadow anomalies"? Did NASA add them intentionally just to see if someone would catch them, kinda like a "Where's Waldo" puzzle? Or, the photo's were taken on some sort of soundstage somewhere in Hollywood, and the shadows are the result of multiple light sources, right? Well, if you were going to spend 10 billion dollars commiting a fraud, don't you think you would be smart enough to use a single point source for your faked lighting? I mean, they were crafty enough to fake thousands of points scientific data so precisely that even now, nearly a half century later, they continue to correlate with what is discovered by modern technology. Ockham's Razor, man......Ockham's Razor.
Secondly, and don't take this as an insult, but these photographs have been viewed by thousands of photography experts for the last 40 years, and no one, even the ones in the tinfoil hat brigade has stood anything in them up as "proof" of a faked landing, as you claim to have found in them. Yes, there are plenty of websites full of nutjobs discussing them even to this day....but there are websites that track Elvis sightings too.
But now specifically:
andyb wrote:Apollo 11 picture. Everything on the moons surface in a shadow is totally black, yet little or nothing of the Astronaut is in shadow. Considering just how reflective and bright many parts of the moon appears to be, I would have thought that the Astronaut should be a little more shadowed, even his blackened boots are quite visible. Also notice the bright highly reflective gold thing in the bottom right corner of the picture is even shadowed more than mr Astronaut.
Sorry for the added emphasis, but I'm disappointed that your, "
NASA's own pictures proved that the landings were a HOAX" boils down to you "would have thought that...".
But specifically: The suits aren't just reflective because they're white, they're reflective because they're actually, well, reflective. If you're ever in the states, stop by the Smithsonian museum and have a look at one of the suits. You can't actually touch them, but you can get right up close to them behind the glass. (I'm assuming that there's no Apollo space suits on display anywhere in the UK, there may be). They're not just white fabric, they have a metallic reflectiveness to them, sorta like the fabric that jogger's jackets are made out of so that car headlights will reflect off of them. On the spacesuits the reflectivity reduces heat gain.
That fact, plus the photographic effect of the reflected foreground illumination, discredits most of your "too bright shadow" arguments.
The black levels are also dependent upon the type of film used in their camera's, as well as the focal length, aperture, and exposure settings. Depending on the specifics, nothing in these pictures looks un-natural. I've taken plenty of pictures with the black levels amp'd up to wash out detail in the dark backgrounds. Pretty simple.
andyb wrote:Apollo 16 picture. Anyone think that its more than a bit odd that the US flag on the landing craft is perfectly visible when its in a deep shadow. Now credit where credit is due, this one could be an optical illusion.
Not odd if it is made of the same reflective fabric as the suits.
andyb wrote:Apollo 17 pic 1. Again the flag, and even the dirty parts of the astronaut seem to be more visible than they should be.
It's the reflective suits, again.
andyb wrote:Apollo 17 pic 2. This time we have non-uniformity, specifically the Astronaut in this picture is actually in shadow, and its a very very dark, almost black shadow, surely this should not be so.
Reflective suit, diffusive dirt.
andyb wrote:Apollo 17 pic 3. This one is just plain weird, take a look at the landscape, the rocks, the shadows, the angle and slope of the landscape where various rocks are located, also look at the lunar rover, and the shadow it casts. If you try to guage where the light is coming from where do you start. Lets say the lunar vehicle, and the shadow casting rocks at that kind of distace, the sunlight apears to be coming from above, but on the left side of the photo it apears to be coming from the left slightly, and on the right side from the right. No matter how I look at this picture, and how much I try to persuade myself that this is just a trick of the light I cant figure out exactly how this can be correct. When there is one totally dominant light source, in this case the sun, all shadows will travel in the same direction, how far they travel, and how they are altered depends on where the shadow falls, if its on a slope the shadow will fall at a different angle compared to it falling on a flat surface. I cant fathom how the rocks in the bottom right of the picture are creating shadows to the left, the land is obviously sloping down away from the camera and to the right, shouldnt this extent the shadows in that direction, and not the opposite way.
The trouble with interpreting this photo is that you're assuming the ground in the foreground is flat. With the uniform lunar dust there's few visual clues as to what the actual shape of the ground is. If the ground is sloping in multiple directions, then the shadows all make sense. Take the shadows as a guide, and you can mentally reconstruct the shape of the ground the photograph is of.
Besides, what is other explanation? If the multiple shadow angles were from multiple light sources,
each item would have more than one shadow, wouldn't it?
A neat little website that talks about all these things you've "discovered" can be found here:
http://www.iangoddard.net/moon01.htm
andyb wrote:PS: Why did NASA remove dozens of photos from their website, the majority of the really questionable ones are gone, is this a conspiricy to hide a conspiricy to piss the russians off.???
Andy, all the Apollo mission photographs are public domain..just because they aren't on the website doesn't mean they've been destroyed. There are literally thousands of photographs taken during the moon landings, all available to the public.
