yvind Strm wrote:
The ground the two Astronauts are standing on is virtually flat.
Yes, when landing something like a lander, you would expect them to choose the rockiest, most mountainous area around... No they would choose as large of a flat area as possible so they wouldn't... you know... CRASH
Heres is another pic, where this time the back of the astronaut should be in silhouette but its not, its clearly lit:
Incorrect, light is bouncing up off the surface of the moon and (in the first image all that gold foil on the lander--which is acting as a giant reflector) You will actually notice the areas you think should be silhouetted in the first are yellowish because of this. In the 2nd image, you see "fill" is diffuse light coming from below, being bounced up off the dirt.
Now lets look at fact two: "The Sun shines at virtually the same luminosity over the thousands of square miles of the Lunar surface lit by it."
Now look at the brightness of the Moons surface in the photo...It is clearly brightest within the small area in which the Astronaut is standing and it gradually gets darker the greater the distance away the surface is from his position.
Several reasons: 1) The light is being reflected off the dirt two ways: diffuse bouncing every where and directly where Angle in=angle out... the dirt will appear brighter in areas where the directional reflection directly back towards the camera, the other areas only the diffuse reflection is hitting the camera the front on shot is brighter between the camera and the sun, the other because the sun is behind, it's where the dirt is more in line with reflection. 2) Vignetting of the lens will darken the edges 3) The technique of Dodging and Burning may have been applied to center the viewer's attention on the subject.
In reality, there would be no noticable difference in surface brightness from the foreground right out to the visible horizon.
No it would not, the reflection from the dirt would cause brighter areas.
Now for facts three and four: "The Astronauts had large/bulky Hasselblad cameras with them. To keep their hands free they were mounted on chest height brackets on the front of the suits."
The Hasselblad cameras were not specially shielded against highly penetrating radiation from the Solar wind, such as high energy Helium Nuclei produced by nuclear fusion in the sun. Unlike the Earth, the Moon has no magnetic field to deflect the solar wind so its surface is constantly bombarded by it.
Even in the apollo space capsule or inside the Eagle lander, there would be no protection from such radiation which can pass through several meters of dense shielding. And all the time they were travelling to the Moon and back they would be exposed to it constantly as well. To make matters worse this same radiation produces deadly X-Rays when the particles colide with gas particles, such as that within the Apollo spacecraft and of course within the Astronauts suits.
"High energy Helium Nucli"? Do you mean High energy Hydrogen Nuclei? That's Alpha Radiation, which is smaller than Helium Nuclie... Alpha radiation can be stopped by a piece of paper... if you have a smoke detector it's pumping out alpha radiation from the Americium or similar element in it. The aluminum casing of the film back would be more than sufficient to stop Alpha radiation or even bigger (and less penetrating) Helium Nuclei.
So with all that penetrating radiation and X-Rays flying around on the week or so long mission, why are there so many all too perfect looking NASA apollo photos around when in reality most the negatives would be fogged and therefore useless by the time they got back to Earth.
They may have picked up some fogging (even flying high altitude flights exposes film a bit.) But keep in mind you can take 100 ISO back and forth on 50 trans-atlantic flight and put it through the x-ray machine each time. It will be slightly fogged, but not terribly and you can print on higher contrast paper to compensate. And I'm thinking they were using 25 or 50 ISO film back then... lower ISO, less fogging
Now fact five: "The ground the two Astronauts are standing on is virtually flat."
So why is that an important clue?...Take a good look at the reflection in the visor.
If the two Astronauts were at the same ground level relative to each other, and the Hasselblad camera was at chest height, the reflection in the visor would not be directly in line with the horizon as shown in the photo. It should be much higher in the visor. A moonhoax researcher calculated that the camera taking the image would have to be 12 feet above the surface the subect Astronaut is standing on but going by the reflection in the visor, this is cleary not the case!
Perhaps that calculation incorrectly assumed the visor is perfectly spherical... If I recall when I saw it, it had more of a cylindrical component (not saying it's cylindrical but is is somewhere between a sphere and a cylinder) becoming more spherical at the top. to it as shown in this image with the outer layer removed:
You can also see a bit of it in the shot with the flag that you provided.
But even assuming a spherical shape I think the value is flawed.
In either case (cylindrical or spherical) the edge reflections should closely align with the horizon whether the image was shot at 3ft high or 12 ft high... basic convex mirror optics.
I make no judgement as to whether or not the moon landing was faked (I wasn't alive at the time), but your image analysis is flawed.
--
~K
