http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html Lots of fun stuff to play around with here. I was just reviewing raw Apollo 15 mission footage available from NASA, which I've found here: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15.html under "Vid/Mov Clips" (it's all in Real and MPEG format, obviously all done way back in the 90's). In viewing one, namely http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15v.1200916.mpg , I have seen something worth bringing up in response to one of the many common hoax claims. At the first link I have, we find: Watch the film sequence to the left (http://www.ufos-aliens.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Apollo11shadows.rm) that has both movie and still pictures to compare the difference. It's interesting to note that the still photos seem to have Aldrin brightly lit, in comparison to the gloomy motion picture images that had the special night lens on it? It appears that artificial lighting was used or has been added to the still photos to show better features on Aldrin's suit and the Lunar Lander. Because of the lack of atmosphere on the surface of the Moon, the shadows would be intensely black. As illustrated in the above motion picture, why is there such a vast difference in the light from the two cameras, unless the still shots were lit by artificial lighting? NASA have said that no lighting was taken to the Moon, but this cannot be true when you view the evidence. The still pictures seem to show that Aldrin is being artificially lit as he descends the ladder. --- If you look at my Apollo 15 video from the ALSJ above, however, you can see this in the video: as the camera is being set up in the LEM shadow. Perfectly consistent. But then, I'm comparing Apollo 15 to 11, am I not? Better hunt down alternative Apollo 11 video to compare as well: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11f1092206.mov ^ View from inside the LEM showing the same "small step for man" as you see in the "gloomy" black and white video. You can see that Armstrong is actually quite well-lit. The "gloomy" black and white is not a very high quality image, obviously, and the brightness of the sun-lit lunar surface in the background isn't very good for the foreground shadow illumination of the craft and Armstrong. Anyway, to sum it up, in every photograph and video of the landings, the spacecraft and astronauts are all pretty well-lit in the shadows thanks to the reflection from the lunar surface. It also helps, actually, that the lunar surface reflects light most brightly back towards the light source! Thanks to this effect, there is actually a lot of light reflecting back into the shadows. This phenomenon is also visible in every "down-sun" photo and video from the missions. I have to go to Aulis Online to find this one addressed: http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_5.html Editor's Note: The anomalous 'halo' around the photographer's shadow is a recurring effect in many Apollo photographs. --- That "halo effect" is the regolith reflecting sunlight back most intensely towards the sun. It makes a full moon extra bright, and helps illuminate shadowed surfaces. The effect is called "Heiligenschein" and can be seen in grass as well: http://multicms.rdts.de/upload/bilder/104248.jpg
Wow,that bunch has hoax fever BAD One in particular is they say the space suits have a crotch to shoulder zipper and air would leak out of that...wonder if they mean the fabric oversuit over the space suit....as far as I know,all the seals on the suit were metal rings that sealed.
They have a very short-circuited way of looking at Apollo photos and videos. I mean, the image I posted from AULIS even makes an issue of how the shadows seem to point in different directions, though that effect where they all seem to point towards a central point on the horizon is visible in any and every down-sun photograph, be it on the moon or on Earth. Do they ever lift a finger to check why something looks a certain way before they jump to saying "this isn't right - hoax!"? I don't think they do. I went out one evening with my digital camera and easily verified how shadows look in that situation:
What you people are doing is choosing the anomalies that are the easiest to obfuscate to try to draw attention away from the anomalies that are so clear that anyone who tries to obfuscate them will just end up looking silly. http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222 (excerpt) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I urge all viewers who are new to this issue to look at the clearest evidence too. The first section of this list conains some of it. http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4001964&postcount=1
Yep, the kooks like to think they have just scads and scads of "problems" with the "official claims," and of course they don't fret if most at least are easily explained, and thus put egg all over the faces of those who made the claims in the first place. It should give hoax believers pause to consider that just maybe the kooks making the claims are full of shizzle. Instead, they're just like creationists going after evolution...
