Buzz Aldrin salutes U.S flag.

[Gazpar]

Hello. Can someone explain why I dont see the shadow of the flag and the pole in this photo?


Thanks in advance.

[Jason Thompson]

The shadow of the pole is obscured by the churned up ground in front of Aldrin, but if you look carefully a little above the shadows of his legs you can see the thin shadow of the pole. You'll notice that the shadows of aldrin's legs have not converged by the edge of the frame due to the low sun angle casting long shadows, and the pole is longer than Aldrin's legs. Even with the flag being a little in front of him, this will place the shadow of the flag itself out of frame to the right.

[Abaddon]

Sun angle puts the flag shadow outside the frame so there should only be part of the narrow poles shadow visible. this is partly obscured by regolith but is visible to the right of Aldrin's boots.

[Luke Pemberton]

Jason is correct. I'd offer a pragmatic argument that pertains to proponents of the hoax claiming missing shadows or anomalies in the photos.

How does a 'missing' shadow prove that this was shot on Earth? Surely the same problem would be arise if the photograph was taken on Earth or the moon. If you were hoaxing it, wouldn't you just 'take the shot?'

I've never understood a single shadow argument from the view of the intial premise being flawed.

[Bryanpoprobson]

Look at this in high res and you can see why the shadow is obscured in the other image..

[onebigmonkey]

Here it is:



From a higher res version

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS11/40/5875.jpg

I tweaked levels and sharpened to make it stand out more, but you can see it without it.

[Abaddon]

Here it is:



From a higher res version

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS11/40/5875.jpg

I tweaked levels and sharpened to make it stand out more, but you can see it without it.

I used the hires version from ALSJ. The shadow of the pole is plainly visible without any adjustment.

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5874HR.jpg

[DD Brock]

You guys have good eyes, I never would have seen that!

[Gazpar]

I have found them like you said guys. Very dificult to see that shadow due to that ground. I really need to buy glasses.

You guys have good eyes, I never would have seen that!

Indeed.

[Glom]

Yep. I spotted in the hires.

[Abaddon]

Jason is correct. I'd offer a pragmatic argument that pertains to proponents of the hoax claiming missing shadows or anomalies in the photos.

How does a 'missing' shadow prove that this was shot on Earth? Surely the same problem would be arise if the photograph was taken on Earth or the moon. If you were hoaxing it, wouldn't you just 'take the shot?'

I've never understood a single shadow argument from the view of the intial premise being flawed.

Yes, but... The reasoning, if such it can be called, runs that this 'proves' multiple light sources and hence a studio environment. This entirely ignores the absence of the multiple shadows necessitated by such an arrangement, but who ever said hoax claims had to make sense?

[Luke Pemberton]

Yes, but... The reasoning, if such it can be called, runs that this 'proves' multiple light sources and hence a studio environment. This entirely ignores the absence of the multiple shadows necessitated by such an arrangement, but who ever said hoax claims had to make sense?

I've seen lots of missing shadow arguments put forward without the multiple light source argument invoked.

At times it seems that the CTs claim an anomaly in every photograph due to some arbitrary condition they apply, which makes their whole anomalous photograph argument fall down. That's why I argue 'why didn't they just shoot it?'

When one looks at all their arguments - whether it's no stars, missing or peculiar shadows, peculiar reflections, fill lighting, fall off, a moving Venus, strange background perspectives, C-rocks - I ask why would they get different results on Earth compared to the moon for some of their claims?

The anomalous photograph argument is absurd as they have tried to apply it across the entirety of the Apollo record, often invoking special arguments for different aspects of their claim, and at times contradicting themselves. That's my point.

[bknight]

Yes, but... The reasoning, if such it can be called, runs that this 'proves' multiple light sources and hence a studio environment. This entirely ignores the absence of the multiple shadows necessitated by such an arrangement, but who ever said hoax claims had to make sense?

I've seen lots of missing shadow arguments put forward without the multiple light source argument invoked.

At times it seems that the CTs claim an anomaly in every photograph due to some arbitrary condition they apply, which makes their whole anomalous photograph argument fall down. That's why I argue 'why didn't they just shoot it?'

When one looks at all their arguments - whether it's no stars, missing or peculiar shadows, peculiar reflections, fill lighting, fall off, a moving Venus, strange background perspectives, C-rocks - I ask why would they get different results on Earth compared to the moon for some of their claims?

The anomalous photograph argument is absurd as they have tried to apply it across the entirety of the Apollo record, often invoking special arguments for different aspects of their claim, and at times contradicting themselves. That's my point.

Yes, but you aren't trying to sell DVD's, magazines or personal appearances.

[Luke Pemberton]

Yes, but you aren't trying to sell DVD's, magazines or personal appearances.

Yes, if it isn't money making they want to be a celebrity. Even in their ranks they argue amongst themselves. I understand that Ralph Rene was not that complimentary of Bill Kaysing. Other than their claims being utterly wrong, I also believe many contradictions can be found in their theories due to their little in fights and jostling to brand themselves as King of the Hoaxies.

So, regardless of motive, my retort  remains 'why not just shoot it?'

[Abaddon]

Yes, but... The reasoning, if such it can be called, runs that this 'proves' multiple light sources and hence a studio environment. This entirely ignores the absence of the multiple shadows necessitated by such an arrangement, but who ever said hoax claims had to make sense?

I've seen lots of missing shadow arguments put forward without the multiple light source argument invoked.

At times it seems that the CTs claim an anomaly in every photograph due to some arbitrary condition they apply, which makes their whole anomalous photograph argument fall down. That's why I argue 'why didn't they just shoot it?'

When one looks at all their arguments - whether it's no stars, missing or peculiar shadows, peculiar reflections, fill lighting, fall off, a moving Venus, strange background perspectives, C-rocks - I ask why would they get different results on Earth compared to the moon for some of their claims?

The anomalous photograph argument is absurd as they have tried to apply it across the entirety of the Apollo record, often invoking special arguments for different aspects of their claim, and at times contradicting themselves. That's my point.

True. The CT proponents will often apply self contradictory arguments to different photos and arguments which do not apply regardless of where exactly, moon or earth, the photos were taken. As far as I can make out (and it's a stretch) the claim with this particular image is that the "fakers" forgot to add the flag shadow thus proving "fakery".

Where, exactly, does this leave the claimant? Were some, all or none of the shadows faked? Why would that be necessary? Or even desired? Why would the supposed "fakers" fake any shadows at all? Why not simply photograph the shadows as they were? How would the supposedly godlike "fakers" incompetently miss such a thing?

And so on. The whole notion is more full of holes than a swiss cheese.