Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Location: Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1997 -> Jan -> Re: Moon 'Photos'?

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: James A Diss <76710.234@CompuServe.COM>
Date: 06 Jan 97 13:51:50 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 01:31:03 -0500
Subject: Re: Moon 'Photos'?

>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Bob Shell <76750.2717@CompuServe.Com>
>Subject: Moon Photos????
>Date: 03 Jan 97 16:10:02 EST <<

>Even though NASA says that the photos were taken in sunlight with no artificial
>light, he shows clearly that multiple light sources were used to make some
>photos, and either giant banks of lights or giant reflectors used in some (and
>clearly reflected in the faceplates of the helmets!!!!). In many the angles of
>the shadows just don't work for a point-source light at a great distance (the
>sun) which would produce parallel shadows.  Here we have shadows at varying
>angles across the photos, triangulating on a light source just outside the
>picture area.

A nice theory, and the same that Marcus Allen relies on in his largely
'shrugging' dissertation on the subject, 'preferring that other people make up
their minds'.

Yeah, right.

So, I'd be interested to know why photographers use large white boards in
addition to flash on photographs, particularly portraits.  This would be
'fill-in', to reduce shadows, right?

So, anyone want to look out the window and estimate the reflectivity of lunar
regolith?

On a similar point, we have a large vehicle made of aluminium and gold foil.
Anyone feel like checking out this for is reflecting charecteristics?

However, I have to say (with an apologetic nod to Graham) that the FT article
was better than the one produced in 'The Unopened Files' from the publishers of
UK 'UFO magazine'.  I'll use page numbers for brevity.

col 1, p66 - "Reflection in the face plate", clearly reflected regolith, a
non-starter.
col 3, p66-67 - "Shadow of the rocket nozzle on the surface", laughable, as it's
a picture of the attitude adjuster up close.  Close to the portside window of
the LEM..
col 3, p67 - "lack of 'blast' holes under the LEM", descent was controlled  with
the thruster far above the surface to stop dust being kicked up.
col 1-3, p67 - "Out of proportion lunar rover", ridiculous claim.

James D,