I've been meaning to post here for a while, so here goes:

I remember avidly watching all moon landings coverage we got here in the UK, and I had already been following the end of the Geminii program and the early Apollo missions. As a young teenager I tried to watch every second of TV coverage (of anything vaguely space related), soak up every column inch of newspaper coverage, checked every magazine I could get hold of for anything space related and the gold mine at the time were several National Geographic magazines (that I still have some of now).

I continued to follow the Skylab and MIR missions, the Russian "long stay" cosmonauts, and of course the development of the space shuttle and ISS.

It was only towards the end of the 90's I got a hint that some people might be thinking that the moon landings were faked, but I dismissed it at the time as a few daft idiots.

Then in 2001 or 2002 or around then there was a late night discussion program aired on UK TV (Channel 4? or 5?) where there were some people trying to say that certain photos were "obviously faked" because of "lighting issues", such as fill in lighting, or the "spotlight effect" etc..

I had been using a "fully manual" SLR camera for several years, and had a manually operated compact for many years before that, so I understood at least something of ISO settings, exposure etc. It also made me think back to remember some basic school physics about reflection and refraction of light.

Initially I thought "have I been misled all these years?", but then after only a few seconds, even without the benefit (at the time) of any internet research from BA or Clavius, I was able to look at what they were saying and think "no, that's not right". Just using my basic understanding of light reflection and refraction, coupled with that little photography knowledge I already had I could see and was able to in effect prove to myself that what they were saying was bunk.

Then when they mentioned "no stars" it made me cross, as these supposed "photographic experts" had no idea about exposure settings etc!

I had quickly understood the fill in effect as the astronauts were wearing brilliant white suits (in bright "morning" sunlight) in an otherwise fairly dull grey landscape.

The heat issue was mentioned to do with the film but I had that one straight away (vacuum, silver camera bodies etc).

It was after this that I began researching the hoax "theories" and found Bad Astronomy, Clavius, and led me here to this place, one of the few havens of sense on the internet.

To me the moon landing are still mankind's greatest ever adventure, and stick in my mind almost like they were yesterday (or perhaps last week). As a young teenager I can remember the feeling I had at the time, summed up perfectly by one of the Houston ground controllers in "For all mankind" - quote: "I wanted to go with them so bad I could taste it!" (wow! just writing this has it getting to me again!)

I have so many memories of following it, I still feel the tension as Neil is trying to find a safe spot for Eagle to land, with the fuel count down going in the background, then there was the anticipation for more tv coverage from the moon on Apollo 12 and the frustration when they burnt out the camera, the unbelieveable drama and tension of Apollo 13. The computer enhanced pictures for 15 (I think), and how much clearer they now were! The realisation (and dismay) that we weren't going to get any more manned moon surface video for several years (!!! little did I know at the time that there were going to be NO MORE for more than 40 and probably as many as 50 years!!) as Apollo 17 left the moon's surface.

I have followed all (or most!) space missions since, but I do feel that something was lost once the manned moon missions finished. I suppose it feels a little like a small part of our shared desire to explore was removed. What had begun to seem like something shared "for all mankind" then got lost somewhere.

It seems there is far less interest in anything to do with space from the youngsters of today, and the internet possibly suggests to them that the world (and maybe even space?) is a fairly small and easily contained environment we now live in.

Anyway, that's me. I hope there is someone who has managed to read this far and is not yet asleep!

__________________
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not Eureka! (I found it!) but rather, 'hmm.... that's funny...'
- Isaac Asimov

Are we alone in the Universe? Are we the only intelligent life? Who knows? But the universe is so BIG, it somehow seems such a waste of space if we are ....