CraigZ says...

With all due respect, I have a small disagreement about your 11863 and 11866 photo analysis, Johyn Witts. Someone dropped 11866 7-8 degrees and raised 11863 7-8 degrees, of course they're gonna match.

That someone would be me. And 'of course they're gonna match' because all I did was take out the effects of the tilt of the camera when the photos were taken. The whole argument was that the backgrounds didn't match. If I'd matched up the backgrounds at the LM angles didn't match up, there would be something in what you are saying. Unfortunately, the LM angles are the same.

Irwin (11866) should be tilted more than what he is. Its really no big deal if they did cut 'n paste the mountain and/or the astronauts just to straigten them out, it's just I can't get anyone pro-NASA to say so. Must be a pandora's box thing.

If I'd matched up the background only to find that the astronauts were then leaning over at funny angles, there would be something in what you say. Unfortunately, the astronauts are brought back to standing upright in the combined image. Look at the yellow 'uprights' I've provided. Look at the linked hi res version. Both astronauts are standing vertically in the combined image. They seem to be leaning in the single origional images. HB's always harp on about how difficult it would have been to frame a shot like this with no viewfinder, big gloves, helmet etc, yet when we find a photo which seems to have been taken all wonky, they then find a reason to use this as evidence of a hoax, because the background angles are slanted. These two photos were taken by different astronauts. They may have had different ways of holding the camera. They may have used different hands. My point is that you cannot argue that the photos were too good, then argue that they were not good enough.

Irwin (11866) should be tilted more than what he is.

Based on what? He looks upright to me, in the combined image. He's not exactly falling over. If I find anything that doesn't look right, or I can't explain. I'll look it up in a book, or post it here or elsewhere and ask 'Why's that then..?'. I don't automatically assume that something I don't understand necessarily means I can't understand it. I just ask. And I usually get a consistent answer. By consistent, I mean an answer which also fits in with everything else I've learnt. I don't automatically assume Moon Monkeys or hoaxes. I'd rather accept that the astronauts had trouble keeping the cameras level than someone forgot to move the scenary right, especially as we know that the two photos came from the same camera suggesting it was hand held for at least some of the shots and not clipped to the astronauts chest. Do what I did. Get both photos into Paint Shop Pro and line them up. Fade between the two and you'll see just how exactly the backgrounds line up. This suggests the mountains were some distance away, not close up, as the LM and flag are different sizes, showing that the photos were taken from different places. If the background was a near-by cardboard model, it's size would also change and it doesn't. Anything else?

[spelling again!]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: johnwitts on 2002-02-05 18:23 ]</font>