Conspiracists focus heavily on NASA photos. They point to oddities in photos and films taken on the Moon. Photography experts (even those unrelated to NASA) answer that the oddities are what one would expect from a real Moon landing, and not what would happen with tweaked or studio imagery. Some of the main arguments and counter-arguments are listed below.
1. In some photos, crosshairs seem to be behind objects. The cameras were fitted with a reseau plate (a clear glass plate with crosshairs etched on), making it impossible for any photographed object to appear "in front" of the grid. This suggests that objects have been "pasted" over them.
This only appears in copied and scanned photos, not the originals. It is caused by overexposure: the bright white areas of the emulsion "bleed" over the thin black crosshairs. The crosshairs are only about 0.004 inch thick (0.1 mm) and emulsion would only have to bleed about half that much to fully obscure it. Furthermore, there are many photos where the middle of the crosshair is "washed-out" but the rest is intact. In some photos of the American flag, parts of one crosshair appear on the red stripes, but parts of the same crosshair are faded or invisible on the white stripes. There would have been no reason to "paste" white stripes onto the flag.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landin…
This is the photo i am talking about that looks like its lit as if in a studio, how do you explain this:
http://www.clavius.org/manmoon.html
1. In some photos, crosshairs seem to be behind objects. The cameras were fitted with a reseau plate (a clear glass plate with crosshairs etched on), making it impossible for any photographed object to appear "in front" of the grid. This suggests that objects have been "pasted" over them.
This only appears in copied and scanned photos, not the originals. It is caused by overexposure: the bright white areas of the emulsion "bleed" over the thin black crosshairs. The crosshairs are only about 0.004 inch thick (0.1 mm) and emulsion would only have to bleed about half that much to fully obscure it. Furthermore, there are many photos where the middle of the crosshair is "washed-out" but the rest is intact. In some photos of the American flag, parts of one crosshair appear on the red stripes, but parts of the same crosshair are faded or invisible on the white stripes. There would have been no reason to "paste" white stripes onto the flag.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landin…
This is the photo i am talking about that looks like its lit as if in a studio, how do you explain this:
http://www.clavius.org/manmoon.html
-
I normally like to make people like you look stupid, but you already did a good job doing that yourself. The next time you try to promote the Moon landing hoax conspiracy theory, you probably should avoid citing the Clavius website which is one of the biggest debunkers of the conspiracy on the internet. My advice would be for you to actually read the text that accompanies the photo in the link you provided. While you're at it, read the rest of the information on the Clavius site. Maybe by doing so, you can avoid asking stupid questions in the future.