Folks (especially JayUtah)--

I get asked about an image of the flag in Apollo 11 quite a bit, so I wrote a form response. I just want comments on it, because I think it answers the question, but I want to make sure my analysis is correct.

Comments?

__________________
Phil Plait
The Bad Astronomer
http://www.badastronomy.com
badastro@badastronomy.com

But that shadow was added in after us honourable conspiracists uncovered this fraud.

__________________
Freedom For Fission A breath of fresh Iodine-131

Phil,

fortunately, we have another picture of that scene taken from another angle, the 16mm DAC in the LMPs window of the LM, which recorded the whole moonwalk with one frame per second.
If you look at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11f1101135.jpg everything is clear. The flags shadow begins around the same distance as the shadow of Buzz' torso, while on the right border of the Hasselblad image we still see just the shadows of Buzz's legs.
And some part of the flag pole's shadow can be seen near the right border of the Hasselblad shot.

Harald

__________________
"Flying in space is risky business, but just staying on this planet is risky business too." - John Young, astronaut

That's what I love about this board! =D> =D> =D>


WTG Kucharek!

__________________
Hanlon's Razor - "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
Asimov's addition - "Or ignorance."

"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
-- Charles Babbage

Well, I'm not really satisfied. It took 13 minutes until that answer to the BAs question was posted. I've to work on that!

__________________
"Flying in space is risky business, but just staying on this planet is risky business too." - John Young, astronaut

I've looked at this photo before and have come to a similar conclusion. It is clear that the shadow of the flag itself is to the right outside the frame. The high-resolution scan also clearly shows part of the pole shadow to the right of Aldrin. As for the rest of the pole shadow, it is unclear to me exactly why it is difficult to see. It may be due to ground slope or perhaps due to the roughness of the surface. The roughness is causing a chaotic mixture of light and dark shadows in which I believe the shadow of the pole is lost. I do think I see part of the pole shadow across one of the footprints to Aldrin's left (about half-way between Aldrin's leg and the pole).

Edit: spelling

Nice, thanks! =D>

I have amended the copy to include this. Kewl.

Yeah, admit it! It took 12.5 minutes to find the DAC picture! Still, good on ya!

__________________
Hanlon's Razor - "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
Asimov's addition - "Or ignorance."

"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
-- Charles Babbage

Hmmm, looking at it again, I don't think the surface is sloped. The area would look different, and the shadows would fall differently. I think the surface is just too rough to see a narrow shadow. I changed the text:

I like the revised version better, though I do think some of the shadow is visible in as11-40-5875HR.

I think I see what you mean, but it's so tentative that I can't be sure. And either way, pointing it out to the random emailer would be too difficult!

Dang, I missed this party.

I concur that the shadow of the flag itself is out of frame to the right. I agree with Bob that portions of the pole's shadow are visible.

I do believe the ground slopes away from Armstrong in this photo, at the point where the flagpole shadow falls. In http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5885HR.jpg the footprints heading from the flag toward the upper right are Armstrong's as he moved the television camera, and from which direction he was coming as he photographed Aldrin. The dip in the shadow where the surface is pristine is evidence of a depression there.

This picture is also helpful. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/as11-40-5905HR.jpg

As is this one. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/as11-40-5949HR.jpg

There's evidence of a gentle slope, but that's all it takes.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

In this image, there is clearly a mound of regolith at the base of the flagpole. That would cover the shadow as well.

I put this up

Aldrin on the moon/flag shadow

Yep, that's exactly the way I see it.

So, um, HBs believe that since the flag doesn't throw a shadow, it must not be on the moon? So they find the idea that a stage-set exists somewhere where, mysteriously, solid objects fail to throw shadows more believable than the moon landings themselves?

Presumably the claim is that whoever put the fake picture together screwed up and forgot to put the flag's shadow in.

Edited for second thoughts: How about the following for an HB syllogism?

If the Moon landings were faked, then some of the photos would have problems.
Some of the photos have problems.
Therefore, the Moon landings were faked.

(This is not a legitimate syllogism, btw.)

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

So, the HB's claim that the way shadows fall indicate multiple light sources on the soundstage, but also say that the shadows were added in artificially later? :-?

The part that I like about the multiple light sources is the complete refusal to address why there aren't multiple shadows. I mean, two light sources, two shadows. Seems simple enough to me...

Your writeup is very good BA 8) , and kudos to Kucharek for finding that context image...

I don't really like the word 'independent' here though. Perhaps 'secondary' may fit better?