That feedback on my moon landing photo analysis shifted my whole approach

A man in a NASA forum told me I was misreading the shadow angles in a famous Apollo 11 image, so I went back and measured every single shadow against the known sun position for that date and time in July 1969. He pointed out a 5 degree discrepancy I had missed that actually matched a known soil slope rather than a second light source. Has anyone else had their whole theory unravel because of one piece of specific technical criticism?

2 comments

2 Comments

the_sean1mo ago

Man, I gotta push back on this a little. I mean, a 5 degree shadow angle difference is real small and could easily be from camera lens distortion or even just the way the film was developed back then. Ive messed around with a few Apollo photos myself and found that some of the flagged "shadow anomalies" are just from the ground being uneven or the astronauts standing at a weird angle. Not saying youre wrong about the soil slope thing, but that one technical detail doesnt always prove there was no second light source. Sometimes the simplest answer is just a bumpy surface and a camera held at a weird tilt, lol.

ross.river1mo ago

Honestly, this is exactly what I notice all the time in real life too. Like, people see a weird shadow or a crooked picture frame and instantly jump to "must be aliens or a conspiracy," but they forget that the floor in most houses isn't even perfectly level. I've tried hanging shelves and the bubble level says one thing, but the shelf still looks tilted because the wall itself is a little wobbly. Same deal with those photos - a bumpy ground and a slightly crooked camera can totally mess with what we think we're seeing. Tbh, the simplest explanation is usually just a wonky surface and bad angles, not a government cover-up.