Dave Greer

Not that I wish to be accused of over-egging the pudding, but... 118:25:54 - Gene Cernan takes the following photo of Jack Schmitt near the flag, with Earth in the background. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20384HR.jpg After that, they swap places, and 30 seconds later Jack Schmitt returns the favour by taking this photo of Gene Cernan holding the flag, with Earth in the background. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20385HR.jpg Let's concentrate on the reflections in the visors and see what we can see. Since they are reflecting the same scene, but in different visors, we may be able to see things in one visor that aren't as clear in the other. Crop of 20384 (Schmitt's visor) Rotated crop of 20385 (Cernan's visor) Comparing the 2 crops, it's very clear that the dark area to the right of the reflection of the astronaut is most certainly his shadow. Schmitt's visor doesn't seem as scratched as Cernan's so the outline of the shadow is more clear. Here they are superimposed as a GIF. Helmet's at slightly different angles, but you can see what are reflections, and what are scratches/dust. No horns. No feathers. No cameras with telephoto attachments. Nothing more than a plain, boring old shadow. Strange that an astronaut on the moon should cast a shadow in the full glare of the sun, but there you have it folks. Incidentally, it's also clear from these two photographs that there are no spotlight brackets visible in Schmitt's visor. Is it more likely or less likely that the feature on Cernan's visor is going to be that of a stagelight bracket that mysteriously appeared in 30 seconds, or scratches on the visor that we know exist! (See my animated GIF in previous post, or check out the specular reflections off scratches in AS17-134-20380).

Duane, a lot of your insistence that your interpretation of these "visor reflection anomalies" is the corect one seems based on the notion that "dusty scratches" on visors are either negligible or non-existent. Take a look at this GIF, made by cropping and scaling 2 Apollo 17 images taken just seconds apart. Due to a minor variation in angle, you get to see quite effectively how reflections behave, and how scratches behave. I've centred both crops on the reflection of the astronaut taking the picture. It is quite clear that there are a lot of scratches on the visor. For example, look at the feature just above and to the rightof the astronauts reflection. If I wanted to be creative and use my imagination, I'd say this was a space jellyfish. I can clearly make out the stingers coming down and surrounding the astronaut. If I then switch on the "anomaly filter" that I apparently have in my brain, I see some boring old dusty scratches. Similarly with the reddish-coloured vertical hotdog to the bottom right. Surely not the rover fender? How dull. The images are:- as17-134-20476 as17-134-20477 Here's a link to some higher quality crops - the GIF software reduces the resolution slightly. Crop of 20476 Crop of 20477

Care to point out where the shadow should be, if not where it actually appears to be? OK. I think we left off with you needing to prove that the DAC lens wasn't single coated. Have you managed to turn up any proof of that yet? Do we really need to drag this out, since I've already shown a DAC clip from a Gemini mission in LEO that shows entirely blue lens flares?

I think you may be misunderstanding Collins comment. It's quite clear he was referring to not being able to see any stars while photographing the solar corona, which was a task that he performed, from the CSM while in orbit around the moon. He used the body of the moon to partially eclipse the sun, enabling him to photograph the solar corona. He couldn't recall seeing stars in the corona - if you think that's wrong, then you need to supply evidence as to why he should have been able to see stars in the glare of the solar corona under the conditions described. If you think it's going to be worth your effort doing that, bear in mind that Collins said he couldn't recall seeing stars in the corona - he didn't say "No sir, no way were there stars, I remember trying to see them and there definitely were NO stars visible in the solar corona. I was quite surprised." Here's one of the photos he took.

You're welcome. Is your capitalisation of "low earth orbit" meant to suggest that lens flares must by definition be radically different from lens flares as photographed on the moon? Bottom line is, it's film taken in space of the sun causing a blue lens flare - something which you were suggesting is indicative of a tungsten spotlight. I've shown clear evidence, taken using a similar media, from the same era, of sunlight causing lens flare in space to be blue - like the one you showed in your Apollo 14 clip. Given that you've used image taken in low earth orbit to challenge the authenticity of lunar photos, why do you have an issue with others whom you disagree with doing the same as you? I think you're changing the subject away from the subject at hand old bean, but not to worry. It was proven that size of the reflection of the sun in the visor on the TV footage is due to some kind of exposure artefact within the mechanism of the TV tube itself, as witnessed by this video still. You didn't really give a satisfactory response as to whether you understood the principle here - namely, the size of the reflected glare does not have to equate to the size of the light source. How many of these pictures were taken with lens with a single optical coating? If they're taken with modern lens they are likely to be multi-coated. See Craig's explanation and the link in his post for a fuller description. While you're doing that, here's a photo of the sun, taken from Earth, showing blue lens flare. Extreme darkness? I think you must be looking at something different to me. Do you have the link to the entire DAC clip, I couldn't see it on the ALSJ? Cheers

This frame grab is from the Apollo 14 DAC footage up the cone crater moon set..... The blue lens flare would suggest tungsten-i.e. artificial lighting. Looks like a similar colour to the blue lens flare seen in this frame grab, which is taken from .I don't think anyone is claiming that NASA faked Ed White's space-walk, so clearly it's possible to get a blue lens flare caused by sunlight in a vacuum. Possibly something to do with the optical coatings on the lens, not just the colour of the lightsource?

Duane, you can insist on seeing something else if you must, but the evidence quite clearly suggests otherwise. The whole point of using image manipulation sopftware in this manner is to reveal detail that can't easily be seen in the original due to regions of low contrast. Being able to make out five rings in the original photo is quite an impressive feat. I find it very difficult to make out detail in the original - hence the need to adjust the contrast range using software. That's the whole point - the contrast range in the original image is too low to make out detail! It's highlighted like that because it's much brighter than the surrounding area. That's because the central circle shows where the light source is. It fits very well with the known angular size of the sun. And it doesn't fit very well with the Aulis "huge superlight" theory, and your more recent claim about "flashlights on a piece of paper". For you and anyone else who isn't convinced, I've revisited the study so it also brings out the detail that you claim is present in the Aulis study and not mine, while still showing that the central bright region is far smaller than Aulis claim. I'll ask you again, which study shows more detail? Which study is more likely to show how large the light-source is? Here's a simple guide on how to replicate the enhancement I've done to this image. That should be enough so satisfy anyone that the detail has been revealed, NOT added. This assumes you are using Paint.NET, free image enhacement software for Windows. 1. Save the following image to your harddrive - ftp://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ISD_highres_AS17_AS17-134-20410.JPG (NOTE: if the image is not available you'll need to request it from the FTP server again, alternatively there is a crop of the region in question available here). 2. Open the image in Paint.NET 3. Select Adjustments, Curves on the menu bar. (Ensure the RGB transfer map is selected in the drop-down box in the left-hand upper corner of the information box that opens up. 4. Left click and hold anywhere on the grid, then drag the mouse-pointer until the value indicated in the upper right of the Curves window pane is shown as (235,0). Here's a before and after comparison:- As simple as that. If anyone tries this and has problems with it, let me know. That includes you Duane - I want to help you understand this, not make you look stupid.

Well, if these photos were taken in a studio setting, then it can't be due to atmospheric particles either, since the spotlight is only going to be a few feet away! And that's disregarding the claim that the soundstages were set up in huge vacuum chambers. Either way, whether shot on a soundstage, in a vacuum chamber, or on the moon, the effect seen is nothing to do with atmospheric particles. Factors that DO play a rather important role are the number of camera aperture blades, the aperture setting, the lens design (including quality of coatings etc), exposure time, dust on lens, film type used, brightness of light source. (Incidentally, a polarising filter would also have an effect on the lens flare - as far as I know there were none used on the moon, but the CSM windows had a polarising coating IIRC which may well account for the slight differences seen in the Apollo 11 photo of the sun which don't show the round flare visible in the surface photos. PS Processing an image in a software package is generally referred to as "photoshopping" regardless of the software used. I currently use Paint.net which has many of Photoshop's features, but is completely free to download - I would still use the phrase "photoshopping" rather than "Paint.netting" to any image manipulation I do using that software.

That's better. Now you can explain why they were shining flashlights onto pieces of paper, and how you reconcile that with your opinion that there is a huge lightbulb contained inside the over-exposed flare. Correct, I altered the original image - just like the author of the Aulis image did (I don't know if it was Jack or Percy) Why? To try and bring out any detail already present, but masked due to low contrast ratios. That's what Aulis tried to do too. Neither myself nor Aulis added anything not already present in the original image (apart from Aulis pasting in the images of the sun, which I don't have a problem with). Here's the original:- Here's the effort posted at Aulis revealing more detail:- Here's my effort:- Now, which reveals more detail, Aulis's or mine? Does revealing more detail expose anomalies, or cover them up? I think the whizzkids at Aulis need to revisit this image, using the highest resolution version available at the Gateway to Astronaut Photography, and see whether they are capable of revealing the extra detail present in the image that they weren't able to reveal with their first effort. Here's a tutorial on Photoshop curves in case anyone wants to know what this function does (it's very similar in Paint.net).

Duane old bean, I'll give you the opportunity to gracefully withdraw your false accusation (which may have been made in the heat of the moment) before taking it further. No, you missed the fact that it isn't a photo of a flashlight either. As I pointed this out to you via PM and on the forum, it's a photo of a piece of paper, illuminated by a penlight. Again, you have the opportunity to correct your mistake. Let's reverse that one shall we? How come when Jack uses Photoshop you describe the end result as "the latest in computer image enhancement", but when I use it you say I add something that wasn't there? Withdraw the false accusation please, then we can focus on the actual evidence. Remember, I've already said that anyone following the thread can ask me for the PNG file which they can use with Paint.NET. This enables the user to step through each and every function or edit applied to the original image to see what effect it had - eliminating the possibility of shennanigans. The offer is of course open to you as well Duane, since you appear to be claiming I forged part of the image. Thank you.

Your last sentence sums the situation up perfectly. If you believe this, why can you not understand the Apollo photos of the sun??? A flare is caused by air particles reflecting sunlight? Not according to you Jack... Link Link According to your earlier posts, there are 4 types of flare: internal light reflection, aperture, lens coating, or over-exposure. Now you are saying that in a vacuum there should not be halos or flares? From above... How do you account for (i) the contradiction in your own statements, and (ii) this image? Or this image? Or this image? Jack, surely anyone following the thread can see that Craig was simply demonstrating that different f-stops of while imaging the sun produce radically different photos. Greater exposure, more glare. Less exposure, less glare. It takes a bear of very little brain to realise that it just might be possible that the Apollo sun photos were exposed in such a way that made the glare appear to be exactly what it is. If you disagree, please provide empirical evidence that the Apollo sun photos could not possibly have been over-exposed to the degree they were.

That's tantamount to accusing me of falsifying evidence, so I'll politely ask you to either (a) withdraw the remark, or ( prove that I "invented" this evidence (good luck with that). (Incidentally, you still need to change the flase representation you made about the photograph of a spotlight a few posts ago. It isn't a photograph of a penlight either - it is a photograph of piece of paper illuminated by a penlight, as explained by the person who wrote the article you found the image in. You can hardly use that as an apples to apples comparison of what is supposed to be a "superlight" shining directly into a camera.) EDIT Anyone who wants to see how this detail is brought out using the curve function and level inputs on Paint.NET (a free downloadable photo editting programme), please ask and I'll send you the PGN file. The "curve" function and level altering can not add detail that isn't already present in an image - they change contrast ranges, which can enhance detail already present.

Duane - I didn't blame the difference in the two frames on a difference in how the frames were exposed (i.e. difference in camera settings). It's a difference in how much of the sun's disc is visible, hence how much light enters the camera. In the second frame (9306), part of the sun's disc is obscured by the bodywork of the LM. This reduces (but doesn't eliminate) the size of the flare in that particular frame. What this frame clearly shows, is that whether you choose to believe the light is from the sun or an artificial source, it certainly can't be the kind of artificial that you claimed you could see a huge bulb inside. The size of the glare has reduced - caused by the lightsource (I say sun, you say stagelight), being partially obscured. Unfortunately the good people at Aulis are the only ones making the false claim that the entire bright disk represents the size of the sun! It is very easy then for them to show how it must be too big cpmared to the Earth. It's quite obviously a strawman tactic. They continue the strawman by saying that "Some people may wish to argue that the hot-spot itself is actually the Sun". Not the hot-spot they've drawn! The approach I took when analysing these photos goes as follows. We know we can compare the size of the Earth across photos taken on the same camera with the lens of same focal length. And we know the ratio of the Sun's diameter to the Earth's, as seen from the moon. Hence, we can easily show how big the actual disc of the sun should be. Once we've establihsed this (which is empirical data which can be tested and verified), THEN we can see how this fits in with the Apollo photos. Here's how my analysis worked out. And here's the example they used. I've done my own analysis of the frame in question (AS17-134-20410), using the very high resolution archive here. This GIF below superimposes my own analysis over the Aulis analysis. It shows the simple error Aulis made in saying that the diameter of the sun is twice that of the earth in the image - their analysis (actually, their conclusion), was quite simply flawed. Clearly, the maximum angular size of the sun is considerably less than the Earth's diameter.

Duane, for someone who accuses pro-Apollo people of disinformation, this takes the biscuit! That image is NOT a photo of an over-exposed spotlight. It's a photo of a sheet of paper, illuminated by an LED penlight!!! I'll be generous and say you misread the article. Please retract the claim. Source

Duane... perhaps I should have pointed this out more clearly. The yellow dot is something I drew in myself... it represents the approximate size of the sun, computed from the apparent size of the earth in Apollo photos (using an identical focal length), and known data regarding the angular size of the sun/moon as compared to the earth. The sun is so small in these photos that there is very little detail to be seen, in fact it's only just possible to make out what appears to be the edge of the disc. The rest of what you or Jack have previously incorrectly claimed to be the sun is simply a photographic effect due to the extreme brightness of the sun, and the settings on the camera (which were generally set for the equivalent of a Sunny day on earth IIRC). Most of what you see reflected in the visor is glare. I'm unsure of what the angular size of the sun would be, but we know it would be less than in my diagramme since convex reflectors like the sun-visor make reflections seem further away (i.e. smaller) than a flat mirror. The image you posted claiming to be the Apollo sun is mainly lens flare caused by a very strong light source, as explained many times. The actual size of the sun in that series of six images would be similar (relative to the size of the glare) as the size if the sun's disk in my image. In oter words, a lot smaller than what you are claiming is a huge light bulb. This is all fully supported by empirical data. Even the photos from the Apollo 14 series near the LM (where the brightness decreases) back this up: the LM partially obscures the sun's disk and reduces it apparent overall brightness - hence, the amount of flare. The reflections and photographs of the sun may look ridiculous looking to you, but I've done my best to explain it as I see things from my point of view and can't really help you further. Maybe someone else can explain it more concisely?

This is a rehash of what was discussed in this thread a few months back. The white disc visible is not the actual size of the sun. It's caused because the film is massively over-exposed, due to the very bright sun. It's quite easy to come up with a rough estimate for how large the actual disk of the sun would be when photographed with a Hasselblad with a 60mm lens. Here's a quick study I did on this a while ago. The actual size of the sun is approximately that of the yellow circle. This was discussed in the same thread. In 9306, part of the disk of the sun is obscured by the LM, reducing the amount of glare (hence also the amount of over-exposure). Incidentally, these two photos completely disprove your theory about the large lightbulbs being visible. For that theory to be correct, the light source would need to be in front of the LM, which clearly isn't the case. It would also ncessitate a change to a smaller lightbulb for this one particular photo. Jack's claim about sunlight shining through the LM is just wrong. You see this effect in many instances right here on earth, caused by a very bright light source (e.g. sun) being vastly overexposed. Best examples I can find photographically are the "diamond ring" effect visible during some eclipses. Do a google image search for "diamond ring eclipse". Here's one for you consider. Clearly the sun is not shining through the moon - just as it isn't shining through the LM.

To be honest I thought the mediaeval church was more convincing! For the life of me I really can't understand this argument. Let's leave aside for the time being the "feathery horn" argument, and just assume that it might possibly be a reflection of something (sorry but I just shake my head in dismay whenever I think of feathery horns...) How do you come to the conclusion that it can not possibly be a reflection of a shadow? And how do you rule out dusty scratches? We know that the astronaut MUST cast a shadow since he is in strong sunlight. As Jack rightly pointed out, shadows generally start at a person's feet if they are standing on them. Shadows also tend to fall directly away from the lightsource. That's exactly what we see in 20385-20387, so I can't understand why you think it's an hilarious claim? Why do you rule it out so easily? Is it just because you don't think it's the correct shape? Even if it's being cast on rough, uneven terrain? Here's a shadow that to me at first glance looks nothing like the subject casting it. The "arm" appears FAR too thin. There are two small horns growing out of the top of the skull. The hips are too narrow, and appear to show a standing figure, rather than someone in sprinting blocks. After studying the picture for a few more seconds it all clicks into place, and you see that it does represent a runner in starting blocks. Try applying that to what you see in the Apollo photo. Then, factor in the uneven terrain. Then, factor in the dusty scratches on the visor which are partially obscuring the shadow. If you don't think the "feathery" objects you see could possibly be scratches, again I would ask how can you be so sure to rule them out? We see them in many different photos. Take a look at the two crops below. They are taken from AS17-134-20476 and AS17-134-20477 (EVA 3). Cernan has turned ever so slightly in between photos. Crop of 20476 Crop of 20477 AS17-134-20476 AS17-134-20477 Look at the detail on the surface of the visor. It is quite clearly covered in dust and scratches, which are obviously on the surface of the visor rather than reflections of real objects. The reflection of the astronaut taking the photo is right at the centre of both crops. Animated GIF of the 2 crops:- So, we know the astronauts cast shadows. We know the visor was covered in dusty scratches. Why rule out a shadow, partially obscurede by dusty scratches in AS17-134-20387?

Come on Jack, that one's easy.

Disingenuous? I'm providing supporting evidence from within the Apollo record. That photo was taken on the same EVA at about the same time as the other photos, from a similar direction. It shows the astronaut's shadow more clearly since the sunlight isn't falling directly on that side of the visor. That's why I posted the crop of that image. So because it looks to you like a horn with feathers, it must actually be a horn with feathers? The reflection of the flag looks to me like a bent piece of Redcar Rock, but I'm still highly suspicious that it might just be a flag. Why? Well, we know there is a flag in the scene that will probably be reflected in the visor. The reflection is the same colour as the flag. But it certainly doesn't appear flag-shaped. So why do I think it's a flag rather than a bent stick of rock? Well, I wouldn't expect to find a bent stick of rock on either the moon, or on a soundstage, so it would be strecthing the imagination somewhat to say it must be a bent stick of rock, simply becasue it looks like one. Same applies to the "mysterious dark patch". We see it in different places in three different photos - always on the on the right hand side of the astronaut's reflection, which is where his shadow must fall given the light source is clearly on the left. As the position of his reflection changes, so does the position of the "mysterious dark patch". In 20387, the "mysterious dark patch" is partially obscured by scracthes, making it's outline not clearly defined. Given all the evidence, I say that it's likely to be the astronaut's shadow. If we have a bright light source (sun or studio light, take your pick), and a subject (astronaut or astronot, take your pick), then chances are he's going to cast a shadow. What I would not expect to see, either on the moon, or even on your hypothetical soundstage, is a horn covered in feathers. If you still insist that it must be a feathery horn, rather than a shadow partially obscured by the dusty, scratched surface of the visor, then please explain to me why the reflection of the flag isn't actually what it looks like to me - a bent stick of rock? Or perhaps a maypole?Wouldn't that be an obvious piece of whistle-blowing too? If you think it's obviously the flag when it isn't flag-shaped, why don't you apply the same thought process to the "feathery horn"? In case our friends on the wrong side of the pond aren't aware what rock is... here's how it's made.

We'll let the gentle reader decide for themselves then! Duane, I'm sorry you think I'm being insulting, but I put this latest study in the same category as that of Dr Hawkins or whatever his name was. The one who claimed he had a think tank of super-intelligent whizz kids who'd discovered cats and dogs in Apollo photos. I thought you might actually have been having a little leg-pull, because to me the claim about the "feathery horn" can't possibly be expected to be taken seriously by ANYONE, regardless of their views on Apollo? At least with the "light fixture" you have an argument almost worth addressing since if the landings WERE staged, then you might be expected to see that kind of hardware, but come on: do you really think anyone should be wasting their time on hairy horns? Sorry old bean, you'll have to take the blame for that one yourself. You clearly introduced the study of that image in this post. My study showed a close up of the three images of Cernan taken close together, AS17-134-20385-20387. A dark patch on the ground that falls on the opposite side of the lightsource and leads up to subjects feet is generally known as a shadow, especially when you have three photos showing the astronaut at different distances, with the dark patch moving. Expecting each shadow to have a cartoon-lime resemblance of the astronauts profile is a little simplistic: the ground is pockmarked, not flat; the visor is curved which introduces distortion; the visor clearly has dirty scratches which obscure parts of the shadow. You even admitted in your study that the object you highlighted in red was in the wrong place to be Cernan's shadow. That's because it ISN'T Cernan's shadow! It appears to be a crater or other surface feature. It's not an example of whistle-blowing, it's an example of the lunar surface not being like a billiard table. Strangely, the "dark patch" that I claim to be Cernan's shadow IS where you'd expect it to be, and changes with the position of the astronaut in each photo. Here's another image that shows this more clearly (yes, we've seen this before, I've covered up the scratches so you don't think I'm having a dig at you). I'm working on something that should put the whole issue about scracthes and dust on the visor to bed with any luck.

Craig I had a look at this last night - you can find them here. No sign of any "furry horns" unfortunately. Plenty of craters, shadows, a couple of astronauts, a flag. Pretty much what you'd expect on the moon. How dull. The interesting thing about these clips, is that you can pretty much work out when each of the following photos was taken, and surprise surprise there are no discrepancies between the TV and the Hasselblads (providing you have sufficient spatial judgement to be able to work from opposing viewpoints). AS17-134-20378 - AS17-134-20387.

Duane, I'm more than happy to let my analysis of these photos stand, as I'm convinced that any lurkers reading the thread will be able to see whose interpretation actually makes sense, and whose was dreamt up in fairyland! As for a horn shaped object covered in feathers, that's your best yet! I'll admit one thing, your creativity is improving. How did I ever imagine it could be something as boring as scratches on the visor, and an astronaut casting a shadow. Such bland, everyday things obviously never happen in a world where feathery horns exist on moonsets. Let's let anyone following the thread come to their own conclusions by looking at this crop taken from the "ultra high resoution" version of this photo on the Gateway to Astronaut Photography site here. So, I leave it to you, gentle reader, to come to your own conclusions. Is it REALLY possible for an astronaut's visor to get dusty and scratched (shock horror!) And would you honestly expect an astronaut to cast a shadow without it being a carbon copy of his outline on a rough, pock-marked surface like the moon? Or do you think it more likely that a whistleblower decided to leave a large horn-shaped object on the moonset, and stick a few feathers on it. Right in between both astronauts. Perhaps while the Men In Black casually pointed their Hechler and Koch's in the opposite direction. I vote for the hairy horn explanation. Far more exciting than dusty scratches and shadows.

All this was discussed on a previous thread Duane. Here's my "state of the art computer enhancement" of four different photos from different missions showing the Apollo sun. The artefacts both within and without the overexposed glare from the sun (which is clearly NOT the sun's disc) lie on the same axes - good evidence for them being lens flares. Why do insist they can not be cused by lens flare? And an even better one from the same thread that I'm sure Kevin West won't mind me posting on his behalf. This one is a clincher - quite clearly the internal structure of the over-exposed part is perfectly aligned with the visible lens flare outside the overexposed part. Jack even posted a series of images which confirms this. The large circle is glare due to over-exposure of the very bright sun. The internal features are quite clearly lens flare - otherwise you'd need to explain why they ALWAYS match up with the visible lens flares outside the over-exposed zone. That's the main point I'd like you to address as you've raised this issue again - why do say that the internal features, which always align with external lens flares, can not possibly be lens flares? Doesn't this evidence make you even slightly suspicious that you might be wrong, and that it could indeed be lens flare? (An admission of lens flare isn't an admission that it's caused by the sun, it's simply an admission that there is a bright light source in the photos which causes lens flare). Edit - inserted quote tag.

Jack is nearly on the right lines when he says "Specular highlights off an unknown object". The unknown object is right in front of him, so I'm not sure why he neglects to mention it. The sun visor. Why does he just state that the reflection of the astronaut is "too small to be an astronaut"? Why do you accept that claim at face value? He doesn't even say how big he thinks the reflection of an astronaut should be. Has he accounted for the fact that the visor is a convex surface? Has he measured how far away the astronaut taking the picture actually is? If he hasn't done any of these things, how can he possibly make such statements as that? What you've highlighted could only be the astronaut's shadow if the light source was in front of him (the astronaut reflected in the visor). But if the light source was in front of him, then the front of his suit would be more brightly lit. You can clearly the the left rear edge of the suit is more brightly lit than the front, suggesting the lightsource is to the left, and slightly behind the astronaut. If the lightsource is the sun, then the reflected shadow should go to the right and slightly in front of the astronaut's reflection. There is indeed a dark patch of ground visible there, but it's impossible to be certain that it's his shadow - it might be a crater or other surface feature. Luckily we have other photos we can look at for comparison - namely the next two in the series. Here's links to all tyhree images:- http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20385HR.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20386HR.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20387HR.jpg Here are zoomed crops of each image showing the area of the visor under discussion. AS11-34-20385 AS11-34-20386 AS11-34-20387 (the astronaut taing the photo has moved closer, and is bending down on one knee to get the Earth in shot as well. I think it's pretty clear it's the reflection of the astronaut in red, and his shadow in blue. I haven't had much chance to think about the difference between the appearance of the sun in lunar surface and Earth LEO photos. My initial reaction is to look at difference in the environment. The LEO photo is taken through two layers of glass with reflective coatings which may well reduce the amount of glare in the image. My second reaction is that the shape of the lens flares suggests that the aperture setting is much wider in the Apollo lunar surface photos, which would also account for the sun being highly over-exposed.

An interesting read that's pretty much on the money as far as I'm concerned. The last paragraph sums up my feelings (as a non-American) quite well:- That's where the true 9/11 conspiracy lies. Focussing on death rays from outer space and cruise missile attacks on the Pentagon helps the Government by distracting attention away from the real issues.