There is so much questions (or evidence) that it seems the believers are always on the defense...
Loaded language. Any statement challenging the authenticity of Apollo is by definition an attack on it; therefore any answer to such a statement is by definition a defense. Is it inappropriate to call attention to statements we believe and are informed are in error? Why is it so important to you that people who disagree with you and your beliefs be characterized as somehow on the ropes or strainin' to do the explainin'?
...to explain how something "doesn't look right".
I have found more often than not that a conspiracy theorist's concept of what should "look right" is in fact not supported by theory or by empirical study. So much of the activity is in debunking the conspiracist's underinformed expectations.
I went for photos and video analysis approach in my quest to find the truth.
Really. And do you have any training in those fields of expertise? I do, at the University of Michigan and the University of Utah -- specific study in photographic interpretation and analysis. Many engineers, in fact, learn various topics in photo analysis.
I have found that almost ALL of the thousands of photos from NASA website have serious flaws...
For example?
...mostly with lighting and shadows, studio light sets, sun, props, cut and paste, backdrops, reflections, etc.
Among the people here you will find many who are experts (often professionals) at lighting, shadows, studio lighting, sets, props, photographic editing, backdrops, reflections, etc. For example, I'm a professional engineer working in aerospace. I've also been a photographer for about 30 years (sadly only occasionally paid) and I work in lighting and set design at a local semi-professional theater. Are you game to see whether your analysis will stand up to scrutiny by this panel?
I encourage people to look very carefully at the photos - study photography and lighting.
I have. I am trained in photographic analysis (which is different than photography). I have also spent the last nine years studying the principal conspiracy theories regarding Apollo and am quite well informed about the standard claims.
I've done as you asked. I'm prepared to entertain your claims and their supporting evidence. Please begin at your convenience.
Use all your "Photoshop" abilities, for there are many details in the "darkness."
Actual details? Or merely stuff that is in every photo when manipulated pointlessly in a digital editing program? I presume we're going to see the standard parade of quantization and encoding artifacts artificially amplified and surrounded by handwaving hype.
The defects becomes very apparent when you are armed with the knowledge of knowing what your looking for.
And how did you acquire the knowledge of knowing what to look for?
Do your own research...
Did you do your own research? Or did you just copy the conclusions and methods of your favorite conspiracy theorist author? I hope you realize that the Moon landing hoax theory is a very old subject here, and that the regulars are very familiar with the common arguments.
Btw, I was a firm believer of Apollo for a long time.
Every conspiracy theorist says this. A few even say they want to believe in Apollo again. Then it's funny to watch how desperately they cling to the conspiracy theory even after it is factually torn to shreds. What will you be?
I respect both sides of the argument as long as it's backed up with something credible.
Show me something credible.
|