Conspiracies: The Facts * the Theories * the Evidence (17 page)

demonstrate that direct human activity placed them there several

decades ago, particularly given the modern skil s available with

remote-controlled craft. Nor does it mean that the pictures we are told were achieved by men at a ground level were actual y taken

on the Moon, even if they did walk there themselves. As a glance

at Jack White’s substantial deconstruction of the Apollo image

bank at www.aulis.com will reveal, numerous astronauts’ photos

are highly debatable or raise more questions than they answer.

Many of the difficulties inevitably revolve around lighting. As

NASA claims that no artificial il umination was used, it follows

that all the photographs must have been taken in harsh unfiltered sun, without clouds or atmospheric conditions to alter a uniform

light. Yet in a number of shots it is far from uniform, displaying instead inexplicable pools of light, usual y centred on the main

subject. One of the most famous photos of all time – Apollo 11’s

Buzz Aldrin standing on the Moon, as taken by Armstrong – is a

case in point. Especial y when the contrast of the shot is increased, it reveals a much brighter area to the rear right of Aldrin, with a strange and sharp fall-off of light backwards towards the horizon, 99

Conspiracy.indd 99

23/10/2012 15:42:22

conspiracies

but also just a few feet forward, towards the camera. The strong

impression with such lunar images is that spotlights have been

used to enhance the main subject.

Equal y anomalously, this pool of light appears to throw a jet

black shadow forward left of Aldrin, so dark that it is devoid

of any detail in the Moon dust – yet Aldrin’s body, technical y

in silhouette with the light behind him, is well il uminated, the features on his suit captured perfectly. If this is, as NASA implies, due to reflected light bounced from the ground before him, then

why isn’t there also enough ambience to show at least a little

texture in the ground shadow? It could be argued that taking up

the exposure of the camera might have helped reveal the suit front, but if that had been done the whole landscape around Aldrin

should be glowing bright (not relatively subdued, as it appears), and detail in the shadow would, without question, be visible.

These anomalies are repeated throughout the NASA image bank,

leading many theorists to surmise that either artificial lighting was used or that the pictures were taken not on the Moon, but in more earthly studio conditions.

The same image of Aldrin presents a further issue – also visible

in a number of other shots – whereby the height of the horizon

line appears, very pleasingly from a compositional viewpoint, to

cross directly behind his helmet, with the
reflected
horizon line on the visor continuing at the same level. However, that same

reflection plainly shows Armstrong standing on flat ground,

taking the photo with a camera strapped to his chest, as were

the vast majority of the lunar images. Simple experiments (see

especial y Mary Bennett and David Percy’s 1999 book
Dark

Moon
) demonstrate the impossibility of this horizon line being at helmet level if taken by a chest-held camera. When calculated, the horizon should be much lower, passing behind Aldrin’s own chest.

So this photo, and the others like it, appear in truth to have been taken from just above head height, looking downwards, as can

be demonstrated by the fact that the
top
of Aldrin’s backpack is 100

Conspiracy.indd 100

23/10/2012 15:42:22

political conspiracies

also visible, which would be impossible at chest height. Therefore Armstrong could not have taken this picture. If that is the case, who did, and how, with only two people ever on the Moon at any

one time? As neither a person nor a suspended camera is visible

above or behind Armstrong, were these air-brushed out of the

published photo? No convincing official explanations have ever

been offered to account for these issues, which are usual y ignored while the straw man ‘errors’ are loudly derided.

Lighting anomalies become even starker when examining

back-lit shots of the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM, or lunar

module). A number of photos display large areas of deep black

shadow cast into the foreground by sunlight indisputably coming

from behind the LEM – yet the detail in the shadow side of the

module itself is often brightly lit, almost ridiculously so in some shots, exhibiting intense luminosity that couldn’t possibly be

bounced from the surface. Indeed, little bright reflections, seen on the heels of emerging astronauts’ boots, or gleaming off the shiny foil surfaces of the LEM, demonstrate clearly that light is being shone in directly from the side, and not from ground level – again suggesting the presence of artificial lighting.

The cameras themselves (Hasselblad 500 ELs) raise another

issue. Although they were of high calibre, they were also relatively basic, with no viewfinders, having been designed for chest use.

Astronauts operated them wearing thick pressurized gloves and in

helmets from which they could barely look down. Each photo was

taken with no guarantee that everything was in view, even allowing for wide angles. This would not general y be considered the best

way to obtain good pictures. Yet the Apollo record displays a large number of perfect compositions, expertly lit.

A number of professional photographers have expressed

puzzlement over the mostly faultless exposures alone. This is

particularly pertinent to the first landing, Apollo 11, when the

lighting conditions that would be found on another planet were

effectively unknown until the moment the first shots were taken.

101

Conspiracy.indd 101

23/10/2012 15:42:22

conspiracies

Yet the record shows that no ‘bracketing’ (the taking of several

photos using different light settings to ensure that at least some come out correctly) was carried out at any point, despite the

importance of doing so with only manual metering available.

The contact sheets from all the missions demonstrate that the

astronauts simply exited the LEM and started snapping, with no

consideration of the exposures. By happy chance, they got them

right virtual y every time. Defenders claim that the astronauts were simply well trained, but this doesn’t explain the complete absence of procedures that any photographer would have customarily

used at the time.

Additional Visual Issues

Other challenges that have been made to the Apollo images

concern the backgrounds of slopes and distant mountains, as

much as the objects in front of them. The strange, hard lines

that sometimes seem to mark a division between the foreground

as it recedes towards the horizon and a rise in the land behind

it suggest to some doubters either the use of scenery flats or

denote gaps where large screens might rise up to be used for

‘front projection’. Front projection is a technique whereby high-

definition images are beamed from an oblique angle up onto huge

screens (successful y used by Stanley Kubrick in the ‘Dawn of

Man’ sequences of his classic 1968 film
2001: A Space Odyssey
), which players can perform in front of without casting shadows,

avoiding the need for later superimposition or ‘matting’ shots.

NASA says that the hard lines merely denote natural folds in

the ground, but there is evidence in a number of shots of the
same
backgrounds appearing in what should be mutual y exclusive

locations or angles, suggesting either that a piece of scenery has simply been reused, or that an identical background slide has been projected. Perhaps the Moon is simply more uniform in its terrain 102

Conspiracy.indd 102

23/10/2012 15:42:22

political conspiracies

than here on Earth, as has been argued, but that does not explain photos where the backgrounds to close-ups of objects such as

the LEM still look exactly the same in pictures supposedly taken

several hundred yards further back in wider sweeps, with no angle, height or perspective change, which seems peculiar. Critics have

also pointed out that even allowing for the smaller diameter of the Moon to the Earth, mountains on the horizon often seem closer

than they should be, or are hazy and out of focus, when, without

any atmosphere to fog the view, they should be crystal clear.

Scale problems again present themselves when different

images of the same landing locations are shown from varied

distances, with certain objects suddenly seeming to be bafflingly larger or smaller in relation to the ones next to them, compared

with other photos. It might be said that these are optical il usions caused by the lack of surrounding reference points, but theorists claim they could be equal y, if not better, explained if they were in fact achieved using sophisticated model shots where the

relative scales of the different models were not quite consistent (a phenomenon commonly noted in science fiction movies by

keen-eyed viewers). Even pictures of the astronauts themselves

suggest that
they
might be models in certain scenes, a possibility heightened by the notable inconsistencies of the suit details

in some photo sequences. Apparently unremovable features

sometimes seem to oddly disappear or rearrange without

explanation from shot to shot, when they are supposedly the

same astronauts on the same lunar walks.

The Videos

It has been asserted by halfway-defenders that if the photographs may be questionable, then the famous video sequences of apparently low-gravity bounces across the lunar landscape, and ‘rover’ drives across seas of dust prove that men did walk on the Moon. Yet even 103

Conspiracy.indd 103

23/10/2012 15:42:22

conspiracies

these are not universal y considered reliable. Bright flashes which occasional y appear above the heads of astronauts strongly suggest the presence of wires to some, and sometimes men appear to

‘dangle’ in a seemingly impossible way, even allowing for reduced gravity. (This is especial y visible in an Apollo 16 sequence showing an astronaut attempting to get up from the ground.)4

In 2009, celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Moon landings,

BBC1’s general y conspiracy-baiting prime-time television pro-

gramme
The One Show
decided to see how successful y ‘low-gravity’ sequences could be achieved in a studio using wires and

slow-motion techniques. Contrived to debunk nonsensical hoax

theories, instead it did quite the opposite, as even the amused

presenters had to admit, producing footage that mirrored the

NASA videos almost perfectly. Indeed, when lunar footage is

simply sped up a little, the results appear to exhibit quite normal movements, so it is not impossible that sequences might have

been filmed in terrestrial conditions before being slowed down to give an other-worldly impression.

The gravity issue seems particularly pertinent in videos of the

lunar rovers. Given the tales of Moon dust being so dry and fine

that it could fly around the heads of the astronauts for several

minutes before settling again, there is no evidence to demonstrate this in any of the video footage. In the biggest disturbances of

dust that we see, as the rover churns its way across the surface, the lunar soil appears to fall quickly back to the ground in sandy swathes, a phenomenon that is even more obvious when the

footage is accelerated to ‘normal’ speed.5 Other rover anomalies

have also presented themselves, particularly in still shots showing the supposedly used cars sitting on terrain with no visible wheel tracks in the dust leading to them, suggesting they have merely

been ‘placed’ there as set dressing.

Moments where videos
and
photos were supposedly taken at

the same time, which might provide supporting evidence of the

official version of events, can also fail to inspire confidence. The 104

Conspiracy.indd 104

23/10/2012 15:42:22

political conspiracies

famous ‘jump salute’, where Apollo 16 astronaut John Young leaps

up to be momentarily suspended a foot or so above the ground

while saluting the American flag, was allegedly photographed

from the front at the same time as being videoed from behind.

Yet a simple comparison of the high-resolution still shot with the video demonstrates that they must have been staged separately,

as different flag angles, a distinctive flap on Young’s backpack

(sticking up in the stil , flat in the video) and dust anomalies

(clearly visible beneath his feet in the video, absent in the still) make plain. A minor issue perhaps – clearly the jump was

mounted more than once to get two good images – but when

NASA says it is one thing, and the truth is clearly another, it can hardly complain when conspiracy theories arise.

Proven NASA Fakes

If it could be shown that NASA had never in its existence

manipulated an image, all might be well here, and the hoax claims could be swept aside as the madness that the mainstream insists

it is. However, disconcertingly, this is not the case. A much-

reproduced photograph supposedly showing astronaut Michael

Collins spacewalking from Gemini 10 in 1966 was in recent

years exposed as a proven fake when the original image (albeit

horizontal y flipped) was unexpectedly unearthed in the NASA