Moon Hoax:Photographic Evidence
From SkepticWiki
Proponents of the Moon Hoax theory often point to what they claim are problems in the photos that show they were not shot on the moon. These claims have been repeated so often that debunking them has become almost ritualised in some areas.
Contents |
[edit] Shadow Angles
It is claimed that, in many of the photos from the Apollo missions, the shadows are at different angles. One photo often used by hoax theorists to show this is this one from Apollo 14. The hoaxers claim that this is the result of more than one light source in the studio where the fake landings were filmed.
[edit] Discussion
When more than one light source is used to photograph an artificially-lit scene, each object casts two shadows. None of the objects in the photos from the moon ever do. The reason for shadows being cast in apparently different directions comes from effects that happen when a three-dimensional scene is captured in a two-dimensional photograph. There are generally three reasons for this: 1) the subjects are on separate pieces of ground which are sloped in different directions, 2) the shadows are, in fact, parallel but don't show up that way in photos because of perspective, kind of like railroad tracks converging on the horizon, and 3) the shadows are photographed at an angle where it is impossible to tell exactly which direction they are cast in.
[edit] Missing Stars
In most of the pictures taken on the lunar surface, the sky shows no stars whatsoever. A typical example is this picture of Buzz Aldrin and Tranquility Base. The astronauts and the lunar surface are photographed against a pitch-black sky. According to the hoax theorists, the stars should be easily visible because on the moon there is no air to scatter the light in the daytime as there is on Earth. Therefore, the hoax theorists claim, the landings must have been faked.
[edit] Discussion
In reality, stars are quite dim. Even on a clear dark night on Earth, it can take exposures of several seconds to bring out the stars. As the sun was very much out while these pictures were being taken, the camera had to be set for daylight conditions. Any setting that would have allowed the stars to be exposed on the film would have overexposed the moon and the astronauts, which was what they were wanting to take pictures of. Any photograph made with these same settings will show no stars even on the clearest, darkest night.
[edit] Aldrin's Anomalies
In a very famous picture of a besuited Buzz Aldrin, there are a number of anomalies that give away NASA's nefarious hoax, according to the theorists:
- The camera was mounted to Armstrong's chest, so how could it photograph the top of his head? Armstrong must have been two feet taller than Aldrin to make that shot from his chest!
- Looking in the visor shows a scene of nonparallel shadows, indicating further chicanery. Also note that Aldrin's shadow is much longer than Armstrong's. With the sun as the only light source, the shadows should be parallel and the same length.
- There are far too many details in the areas of Aldrin's suit that should be in shadow. On the real moon, these should be completely black (or so claim the theorists); here, they are filled in as a professional photographer would.
[edit] Discussion
Taking the claims one at a time:
- Yes, the camera was mounted to Armstrong's chest (as his reflection in the photograph clearly shows). However, Armstrong was not two feet taller than Aldrin; he was standing further up a slope. Also, Aldrin was leaning forward due to the mass of the pack on his back; this is evident in other photos (such as the one of Aldrin and Tranquility Base above). In any event, there is clearly no camera or anything else two feet above Armstrong's head that could have taken the shot. It would have been reflected in the visor, too.
- The shadows appear nonparallel and of different lengths because Aldrin's visor is curved. This gives a fish-eye lens distortion effect to the scene.
- The shadows on Armstrong's and Aldrin's suits (and in other pictures from the moon as well) are filled in because the moon's surface is reflective as are other items on the Moon such as the Lunar Module and the white space suits the astronauts wore. One way professional photographers fill in shadows when they're photographing in sunlight is to have someone hold up a large white board that reflects the sunlight into the subject's shadows; the moon's surface and other items on it played this role here. This is why the dark side of the astronauts' suits, the lunar module, etc. are filled in while shadows on the ground generally are not. Also consider that the spacesuits are a bright white color while the Moons surface is dark gray so that exposures set to expose the dark surface also bring out detail in dimly lit shadows on bright white spacesuits.
[edit] Disappearing Crosshairs
The cameras used to take the photos from the moon had crosshairs, or reticles, in the eyepiece for the purposes of establishing scale and position. This is a common photographic practice. But in the pictures from the moon, these crosshairs disappear behind objects. This is impossible (so claim the theorists) unless the photos have been tampered with. Clearly, they tell us, these items were added on afterwards.
[edit] Discussion
First of all, what would the point be of adding on these items afterward? Why not just put them on the set and take their picture? How is this damning evidence of a hoax?
In any event, what's really going on here is film bleed. Bright, particularly overexposed, areas of a picture are going to cause the emulsion to bleed over a bit and cover a greater area than it ordinarily would. The crosshairs in these cases would get obscured because they're so thin and the bright areas can easily bleed over them.
If you look closely at astronaut David R. Scott in this picture from Apollo 15, you can see that part of the crosshair covering his backpack isn't completely obliterated. Bleed has obscured much of it, but there's still a faint bit of it left to see.
[edit] Photos Too Good
Something that can be noticed on any of the photos is how good they are. It would be very difficult for even a professional photographer to have taken these pictures, and had the lighting, framing, focus, exposure, etc. perfect every time. How are some untrained astronauts supposed to deliver such perfect pictures every time, with cameras mounted directly to their chests?
[edit] Discussion
The answer is, they didn't. They took thousands upon thousands of pictures; the ones that end up on sites such as GRIN are the few dozen best-of-the-best taken from those rolls. Other pictures didn't turn out so well. Pictures that were out of focus, with the subject cut off, over/underexposed, etc. just don't make those sites and don't go into circulation. But browsing through a complete image library of the Apollo missions reveals many imperfect, and some outright bad, pictures.
The good pictures weren't just good out of luck, either. The astronauts were trained in photography and practiced extensively using the cameras on the suits before the mission launched.
