"Nathan Jones" wrote in message
...
|
| Look at the astronots matchstick leg shadows. They should be much
| wider than shown.

And again, this is simply another claim built upon simplistic and
questionable assumptions and expectations. The observation doesn't match
the conspiracist's expectation, and so the observation "must" be fraudulent.
But when you ask the conspiracist to justify the expectation, he seems to
think it's intuitively obvious or beyond discussion. That's a pretty clear
abrogation of intellectual responsibility.

| Yap until you are hoarse but it will not change the facts.
| The photograph is completely contrived.

Then why wasn't it "contrived" correctly? What possible motivation would
there be to remove the shadows that would have been cast by the light source
that illuminated the astronaut in the original photograph, and to paint in
unbelievable shadows?

Again the answer lies in what Aulis either doesn't know, or what Aulis knows
but declines to share with the reader.

The photo in question is of astronaut Ed Mitchell trying to get his bearings
on the slopes of Cone Crater. That's the part Bennett and Percy don't tell
you. The surface is quite steeply pitched and undulating, but it's not
apparent in just the one photo that the authors show you. It is, however,
apparent in the dozen or so photos that Alan Shepard took in his pan from
that same location, but which the authors haven't bothered to consult.

What does this mean? Shepard is much lower on the slope. His chest-mounted
camera is much closer to the ground than it normally would be. And from the
other photos we can tell that Mitchell's shadow falls across the upper
portion of a sort of "lump" sticking out of the slope.

If a shadow falls transverse to the optical axis, the dimension most closely
associated with the axis will be foreshortened, especially when the view
angle is shallow. There are numerous examples of this on my web site; it's
not just something I'm making up. And that's what's happening to Mitchell's
legs.

And that's not even the punchline.

Reproduced a dozen or so times in Aulis' materials is the famous
AS11-40-5903 (the "classic" of Aldrin). Buried in the appendix of DARK MOON
is an attempt to analyze the photo to determine the camera's height above
the ground. And part of that analysis uses the variable thickness and
direction of the shadow of Aldrin's leg in the crater to estimate the depth
of the crater he is standing in. You can clearly see how the shadow is
narrow on the inside of the crater (where the view angle is shallow) and
thickens as the view angle increases. The authors accept the appearance of
the shadow here as valid, and even try to base one of their other
conclusions on it. But when that same principle explains away one of their
"anomalies" they can't seem to forget it fast enough.

Just one of the dozens of contradictions in Aulis' materials. Ask them
about it. Oh, wait. They don't take questions anymore.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org