A few months ago, the Chinese reported that they were planning a moon shot- if there was any government on Earth that has the bucks to actually do it, its them. It is inevitable that one of the missions is to FIND THE LANDING PADS OF THE LUNAR MODULES. There are quite a few of them (along with a rover or two) that should be littering the landscape up there, and it will be definiate proof of America's residence there (or not....
)
As a kid, I was completely enthralled with the space exploration. It was initiated by a martyred hero president, it had the coolest equipment (8 year old gearheads like ANYTHING that goes fast) that were badder than anything that Mattel could put out (remember Major Matt Mason action figures?), and as a military brat, all the aerospace pilots that my dad knew were pretty rockin guys.
I remember being glued to the TV for the launch, the landing and the splashdown. And I also remember watching the evening news from Viet Nam, a mere 10,000 mile away, and the images from there weren't the best quality either... So the expectation that video from the moon should have been any better quality than they were is kind of a ridiculous expectation. As opposed to the spectacular still camera shots, created on the best film Kodak had to offer and shot through the most technically sophisticated camera at the time. Those pictures SHOULD look as good as they do- definition, clarity and contrast had no reason to be poor. Bounce light reflecting off of the suit of the photographer astronaut could explain some of the perfectly backlit AND key (front) lit shots- no atmosphere allows for excellent white light wavelegnth transmission, and that light reflecting off of the bright white suit could explain that. What IS still a "mystery" is the disembarking astronaut in shadow being well illuminated coming down the ladder, even attributing for the, once again, highly reflective space suit and the bounce light coming back from another, nearby lunar gray surface. The only thing is that ONLY the astronaut is bright, not the lander. Any directed key or fill light would have inevitably shown on the ladder or surrounding areas.
Finally, with rocket propulsion, there should not have been a flame blast- pretty sure they used Hydrogen Peroxide rockets on the lander (think Sammy Miller's R/FC- no flame, LOTS of whoosh..)
That said, the registration marks obscured by objects were obviously the results of retouching- early, and poor, attempts at Photoshop long before the advent of PCs. The fact that, as Mike put it best, "because I'm the mommy & I said so" , NASAs lame non-explaination smacks of deception. Add that with the flag blowing excuse (sorry, but they were totally busted with that blunder- it was a starched flag that should have never moved like that without being affected by a breeze), the lack of stars on the horizon (although, horizon shots of stars against a light gray bounce surface...
... hmmm- as a lighting guy, I can kind of understand why they didn't show up..) and the lack of the lunar crater upon landing are all things that those of us in the 60's would never have been looking for, and obviously, neither were the artists at NASA.
I'm just waiting for China or Russia to take the trip, and all this doo-doo will hit the fan, or be a pretty large plate of it for all the "therorists" to chow down on...
carry on....
)
