Buzz Aldrin seemingly admitting the moon landing did not happen

[uzn]

The Humboldt Crater

[Fellow Aspirant]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

I don't buy it for a moment.

When did any one of us shoot hundreds of photos on vacation and not have 10% of them turn out poorly? (Or more!) Even when we could actually look carefully through the viewfinder and do our best to compose and focus properly.

There are so many photographic anomalies, whole books have been written about them. And no, they didn't take multi-angle stage lighting with them in the tiny, cramped lunar module.

My personal, provisional take, always open to revision in the light of new information:

Some of the missions did go to the moon, but (q.v. the excellent research of Jay Weidner, the best work he ever did) the photos and video were all streamed live as pre-created 'Plan B' backup, directed by Stanley Kubrick, in case something non-optimum or unpredictable happened.

I'm something like 98% certain of that, maybe more.

But, but Bill, I've seen pictures of the banks of lights. Here's one, for example:



It was taken, apparently, when Buzz & Neil had a few of their buddies up for a wee party to celebrate a discovery, and they ... wait ... oops. My bad.
Seems I was remembering something from a movie.
At least it was done by Mr. Kubrick.

So, I'll own the mental overreach on the lights. But the rest if the official Apollo 11 story stands up. The info wrt the design of the cameras, especially in regard to their triple f-stop limitations, rings true. Hasselblad knows too much about lenses and drives to have botched the design to create what were, essentially "point and shoot" devices. The mission was too important to have equipped the crew with anything that was not foolproof. And many hours were spent in practicing how to use them. Few of us, including myself, have ever had formal photographic training. When I travel, I take 300-400 pics a day, relying mostly on my autofocus to do the figuring for me. Consequently, my only "failures" are some action-blurred (when I knew better, but did them anyway just to try out the effects) results, amounting to 3-4 per batch. When I'm standing still and the subject is also stationary, I have zero defective photos. And I'm not a professional. So, shooting "posed" images, without worrying about focus, is something that should give 100% usable pics.

As for shadows being at disparate angles, the phenomenon is easily understood by allowing for the possibility of them falling onto ground features that are not at the same angle as the main landscape. Our eyes "cue" for the horizontal using the main part of the picture's area.

And, of course, there's no wondering about the multiple shadows that come from artificial lights (the sun was the single point source) as there are no multiple shadows. Although some shadows' angles differ from others (explained already) every object that casts a shadow casts only ONE shadow.

Apollo 11 photos taken by Armstrong and Aldrin are entirely consistent with what the technology of the time was capable of.