This looks like cut & paste to me as there is two croshairs on top of eachother

Dude, its the camera used. Its not a 'cut and paste'. Cut and paste didn't exist when those photos were made.

I stumbled across this picture of Buzz Aldrin on the moon that is clearly airbrushed

Its not a scientific photo. Its a photo that is presented to the public as a sort of ad for nasa. If it is airbrushed, so what?

One is casting a long shadow and the other is not

It could be that its just too far for the flash on the camera to have an effect. A flash isn't allways going to be able to illuminate everything or cast a shadow.

Also, think about it. Lets pretend that that photo is from a sound stage.

What different does it make? Why wouldn't there be a shadow on the second object in a sound stage, with a source of light in front of them like that? How can you get the one shadow, but not the other, and not have a similar effect on the moon itself?

This really brings me back to the days just before I registered here. I was doing some research on the Moon Landing Hoax. I had not seen this particular image before, I don't believe.

But since it is clearly a Publicity Photo, one possible explanantion, is that they modified the image to have a better layout. I.e., have the astronaut better centered in that particular moonscape.

Or if you believe people like Edgar Cayce, it's the handiwork of the "whistleblowers".

The only way to truly find out, is to contact Public Affairs at NASA. I'm quite certain they have some form of public relations office. Whether they would tell you anything, or at least anything that you would believe is another story.

But good find.




I'll keep a copy of that right next to my copy of the Zapruder video.

Note to Sardion: The crosshairs here do appear to be more smudged than the overexposure variety. I do understand about that aspect of the crosshairs. But as this is a Publicity Ad, I believe it is a composite image. But since it is an Ad, the point is moot.

[edit on 12/12/2006 by Mechanic 32]

The crosshairs are less visible in some spots because they are underlain by the features of the photo. THey are clear when its just the moon as the background, and understandably pop out of view when its something like a glove behind them.

Hell, for all we know, they were semitransparent decals on the lense of the camera, and shouldn't look the same under all conditions in the first place.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Hell, for all we know, they were semitransparent decals on the lense of the camera, and shouldn't look the same under all conditions in the first place.

Actually no, that's not correct. The particular model of Hasselblad (sp?) camera that Apollo took to the moon for those shots, is widely known.

That camera was specially modified per NASA specs.

The crosshairs were etched onto a glass plate on the interior of the camera.


But as was already stated, since this is a publicity photo, the point is moot, either way.

[edit on 12/12/2006 by Mechanic 32]

[edit on 12/12/2006 by Mechanic 32]

Originally posted by sardion2000
Why would they use a composite when this beaut is available...

They may very well have used that exact pic, but airbrushed the crosshairs to be less prominent.

just an opinion.

I'll have to do a more thorough comparison of the two pics, to be sure though.

I don't have the resources to do that on the harddrive I'm running off of right at this moment though.

I'll post the results, when I do.

Originally posted by DrLeary


I'm simply wondering why they airbrushed this picture... It might just be for layout or appearance, but then you'd think they'd atleast do a proper job? This is photoshop-noob-work...

Well if you think about it, they did'nt have Photoshop in the Apollo days. They did it the old fashioned way, so to speak. Either on a copy of the negative, or on a copy of the photograph used. Of course, I could be wrong altogether, as I don't know when the picture was modified.

Oh and what do people think the objects we see in the helmet reflection is? Kind of looks like a spotlight to me, but as far as I know they never brought any lights up there? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

As for the reflections, if NASA had the forethought of lightening the crosshairs, why would'nt they have removed the damning "evidence" of spotlight reflections on the helmet.

Don't get me wrong, I don't trust NASA or the Gov't 100% in any way shape or form. But one would think that a public relations photograph would not blatantly show anything contrary to the Official Story.

Just my 2 cents.

I have done extensive research myself regarding this very Apollo mission. that is, in fact what led me here to ATS in the first place. I have read all the material I could get my hands on. I do believe there are some questions lingering, but I also have come to the conclusion that yes we did land on the moon. And also have come to the conclusion that there are many people who would like to profit from the speculation that we did'nt land on the moon.

But I believe the initial question had been answered. Yes that image you showed in your first post was indeed modified.

What the reflection in the helmet is, I don't know for certain.

I'm sorry if you are on the "we did'nt land on the moon" bandwagon, but if you do your own unbiased research, you will find the truth. Many of the proponents of the hoax theory have been thoroughly discredited and debunked.

If you really must know what those reflections are showing, call or write to NASA and ask them.

Or MAYBE...Stay with me on this...
Maybe they just airbrushed out all the Crosses because it makes for a nicer desktop backround
MAYBE its just not a massive conspiracy and just NASA's attepmt to make an image look nicer for people to set as their desktop backround

Originally posted by Nygdan
It could be that its just too far for the flash on the camera to have an effect. A flash isn't allways going to be able to illuminate everything or cast a shadow.

There was no flash, ever, only the Sun. More than bright enough as it is.