I happened to be watching a re-run of an old documentary from 2003 that investigated various allegations that the Apollo moon landings in the late 60s and early 70s were all NASA hoaxes and the moon landing scenes were all filmed and photographed back home on Earth, most likely in the notoriously secret Nevada desert Area 51.

I found it quite amusing that the sceptics pointed to 'irrefutable' photographic evidence to support their claims.

[B]Shadows[/B]

If the photographs were taken in the moon then, we are asked, why aren't the shadows strictly parallel as you would expect them to be from a single and very distant light source - the sun?

[IMG]http://dpnow.com/files/blog/moon1.jpg[/IMG]
[I]Are these diverging shadows evidence of artificial light in a massive lunar hoax studio in Area 51?[/I]

Indeed, you can see here that the shadows of the lander and the astronaut are not parallel. But does that mean that a much closer artificial light source inside an exotic studio has given the game away?

Of course not. What you are seeing is linear perspective. If you had a camera pointing perpendicularly down at the ground, which would have to be flat and level, you would see practically parallel shadows. But from the view of a waist-level Hasselblad and a wide or semi-wide angle lens on the undulating lunar surface, you simply won't get parallel shadows.

[B]Shadows again[/B]

Sceptics also point out that with the harsh light on the moon it would be impossible for the illuminated sides of objects, like the astronauts' suits, to be exposed correctly while the 'in-shadow' side was also visible rather than in dark shadow. There must have been a second light source, just as you would have in a studio to balance out shadows thrown by the main light source.

[IMG]http://dpnow.com/files/blog/moon2.jpg[/IMG]
[I]Is there a fill-in light compensating for the harsh shadows you might expect on the moon?[/I]

But once again, the sceptics don't understand lighting. Without an atmosphere and clouds, the lunar surface is an incredibly bright light source in its own right, reflecting the undiluted brightness of the sun in all directions. It's like having a giant fill-in reflector all over the ground. This is why the moon is so bright when seen from Earth.

[B]That flag[/B]

Another suspect is, of course, the flag - not just its unexpected flapping around, which is perfectly explained by the fact that the fabric, unimpeded by air, behaves like chain mail and takes time to settle down, and is easily disturbed when the aluminium poles that keep the flag upright are moved or knocked by the astronauts. There is another flag-related allegation; the fact that several pictures show once again that with the sun behind the flag the side of the flag facing the camera is not in shadow. Again, this is easily explained; the flag's fabric is not opaque. It acts like a diffuser and transmits some of the light striking it from behind.

[B]Where are the stars?[/B]

Another very widely promoted piece of evidence to support a NASA hoax is the fact that there are no stars in any of the photos and the astronauts admitted they could not see any stars with the naked eye when on the surface of the moon. Astronomer and lunar expert, and veteran presenter of the BBC's Sky at Night, actually asked the Apollo 11 crew at a press conference if they could see stars knowing full well that it would have been impossible.

[IMG]http://dpnow.com/files/blog/moon3.jpg[/IMG]
[I]So just where are all the stars in the lunar sky?
[/I]
And why wouldn't stars be visible on the moon? After all, once again there is no light-sapping atmosphere to dim the brilliance of the stars that we sometimes struggle to see in Earth. But let's just think - apart from clouds, what is the primary reason it can be difficult to see stars? Yes - light pollution. If the surrounding areas are not dark enough, either your eyes will not be able to compensate or the sky's brightness relative to the very weak brightness of stars hundreds and millions of light years away will simply blot these pinpoints of light out.

On the moon the sun creates the mother of all light pollution for the astronauts. The lunar surface is a brightly glowing light source. There is no way that astronauts' eyes nor the film in their Hasselblad cameras can record normally exposed surface scenes and the dim starscape above.

Another desperate allegation is that not only would the film stocks have been fogged completely by exposure to radiation in the Van Allen belts that had to be negotiated on the way to the moon, but that same radiation would have killed the astronauts. James Vallen, one of the scientists whose research predicted the existence of such radiation belts around the Earth personally debunked the sceptics saying that they had magnified the threat of the radiation many times. In any case, it's very likely that the film brought on the moon shots would have been stored in lead-lined containers.

The documentary programmed finished with an amusing suggestion that as hundreds of thousands of NASA staff worked on the Apollo programme, wouldn't the sheer effort required to keep a hoax of such an epic scale under wraps mean it would have been simpler to just have sent the astronauts to the moon in the first place?

And if you are still not convinced - why not enjoy this 360 degree QuickTime VR panorama assembled from shots taken on the final Apollo 17 mission:

[URL]http://www.panoramas.dk/moon/apollo-17-2.html[/URL]

So there you are - if you want to use photographic 'evidence' to support an allegation - make sure you understand photography first!

[I]Thanks go to NASA for making the still images shown here available freely to the public and to [/I][I]Kipp Teague who did the work to scan them from the original Hasselblad film stock.[/I]