The photo above is famous, supposedly taken by Neil Armstrong of Buzz Aldrin after he had first set foot on the Moon on July 20, 1969.
Pardon me if I am having too much fun with this, but the photo is all wrong. Keep in mind that the astronauts on Apollo 11 deliberately landed during daylight on that day. Days on the moon are 14 days long, and we know from NASA that the angle of the sun on the Moon that day should have been 15°. Keep that number in mind as we proceed.
- We cannot see anybody’s face behind the visor, and so have to take it on NASA’s word that the astronaut is Buzz Aldrin.
- Another astronaut supposedly taking this photo is reflected in the visor, allegedly Armstrong.
- Aldrin is in direct sunlight from his left. (But wait! There’s s secondary source of light to passively light his right side.)
- Since there is no atmosphere on the Moon, there is nothing to shield him from the actual thermal effect of direct sunlight, which would be about 270°F. Supposedly he is insulated from this effect by his spacesuit. On his right side, the opposite effect, -270°F.
- The astronauts had only one source of light for photography, sunlight.
- Imagine yourself standing in a vacant lot say at noon, in bright sunlight. That sun would light the entire lot without any drop-off.
- In this photo, the light drops off behind the astronaut. By the time you follow your eye to the line of the horizon, you’ll see that it has gotten much darker, almost like twilight after sunset. However, the sun should be lighting up the entire landscape.
It gets more interesting:
The angle of the shadow cast from behind Aldrin is, as I gauge it, is about 30°. Note earlier that according to NASA, the angle of sunlight is on that day 15°. There is only one conclusion judging from the fact that light is dropping off in the background: This photo was not taken on the Moon. It had to be taken on Earth, and was probably indoors with a very powerful spotlight used.
Let’s look some more at the same photo:
Just let the image sit in your eyes for a minute or so, and clear your head of thought, as I can do so easily. Collect impressions.
OK? My impressions … this guy is short. Shorter than Buzz Aldrin, who is 5’10”. But, how do we make a comparison? Below is a photo below taken on July 16, 1969 of the Apollo 11 astronauts in transit to board the rocket ship.
We can see their faces, so we know they are, front to back, Armstrong, Michael Collins, and Aldrin. Note that their visors are clear. I do not know why (actually, I do know why), but when they walk on the moon, the visors are complete mirrors so that we cannot see inside. I assume that they must have had one helmet for takeoff and transit, and another for moonwalking, but do not know. But that’s not the point here. We know the height of each guy, and know that Buzz Aldrin was/is 5’10”.
In order to do size comparisons on photographs, we need a standard. Because of the nature of the spacesuits fitted for each one, they will have very little in common. I studied this matter for quite some time this morning, and finally settled on one part of the spacesuits that appear standard in this photo, and also on the supposed photo of Aldrin on the Moon.
I think it is known as a “codpiece”, which covers the fly. Of course, it would not be functional, as they could not actually open it while on the Moon’s surface. Maybe inside the Lander? What I am going to do is to compare the relative sizes of the codpieces of the Aldrin on the Moon and of the Aldrin transporting for boarding. It might appear as if I am assuming that the two pieces would be identical, and maybe they are, as there is no need to lengthen or shorten it due to relative height. It is at a stationary junction in the uniform. But if I am wrong about that, assume that size difference messes up the measurement. If so, I am going to suggest that my measurements are +- 10% of each other. That could be wrong, but I doubt by much. (And anyway, if they are the same guy, it’s the same spacesuit!)
That in mind, I took the codpieces on the two photos and adjusted them to be the same size, adjusting the size of the astronaut accordingly. Here is what I got:
I placed the feet of Moon Aldrin squarely in alignment with Aldrin in transit. By my calculations, Moon Aldrin is anywhere from 12-15 inches shorter than Aldrin in transit to the rocket. By that standard, these are obviously two different people.
Why so short? This link is to another article at Aulis where it appears that the Neil Armstrong standing beside the Lunar Lander is also only five feet tall or so. It is a long piece at Aulis, so take some time if you go there. (It seems to me that everything at Aulis is a reading chore!)
The point is, as I see it, that a short person was used on Apollo 11 photos that were actually taken on Earth to play the part of both Aldrin and Armstrong in photos said to be taken on the Moon. Why? We can only speculate. My take is that when they showed videos of the Moon Buggy in motion, that it was piloted by a dummy, hands in one position, feet not moving. Judge for yourself.
The buggy (not the astronaut, who does not move) would be remote controlled, not on the Moon from Houston, but rather by controllers standing in the same warehouse where this nonsense was shot. My point is that the dummy in the Lunar Rover could also have been used for various photographs, the famous shot of Aldrin, and the one covered by Aulis of a very short Armstrong standing by the Lunar Module. (If indeed that Armstrong was in a video, then indeed they were using short people).
Otherwise, I cannot imagine NASA deliberately recruiting such short people for the fake photography. If they were real people, they would be taller, and would fit in the real fake spacesuits.
Piece of Mindful 
Nice article Mark – I never noticed the codpiece! Yes that is the right term. They were munchkins on the moon no doubt. It seems like a case of “revelation of the method” or whatever they call it when the hoax is so obvious as to make it a humiliation to accede to their reality – see 2+2=5 in 1984 as an example.
When Petra was around and had an answer for everything, she critiqued you brining up that the moon lander was 33,000 lb as a coincidence. However Buzz is a 33rd degree free mason, and that’s a fact, jack. And he founded a Mason chapter on the moon where he landed. However, in fact in zero gravity people are known to shrink by 20%, so this is all normal.
LikeLike
My error, I meant to say that in a vacuum with 1/6 gravity there is ~ 1/6 shrinkage of all human parts, so they gave the ‘nauts shrunken uniforms to fit appropriately with the photo op, so they weren’t looking baggy.
Which I meant to ask Mark – are the ‘nauts all shruken in all the Apollo scenes, or just these?
The backgrounds are just awful by the way, as you mentioned the light tapers off with distance from the camera. Later missions had that Hollywood 1940s movie look, where the mountains in the background look (obviously) painted, with zero perspective to the rest of the objects in the frame.
LikeLike
I refer to Buzz Aldrin being a 33rd degree Mason quite a lot – as well as, of course, Gus Grissom (Apollo 1 psyop) and – seemingly – so was Fred Haise who participated in (what I believe to be) the Apollo 13 “live” exercise and can be seen in the command module in the hidden hand pose although he is not recognised as a Freemason anywhere. I must say that although I do believe the mission occurred just not with the explosion the outfit he’s got on seems odd to me – may research that more.
Quite a few Freemasons among the astronauts.
https://scottishritenmj.org/blog/masonic-astronauts
I don’t believe everything Apollo, Ray, as I’ve said, I just believe the moon landings.
LikeLike
Maybe founded a mason chapter where they filmed this—definitely NOT on the moon.
LikeLike
Something else i just noticed, which I never had – why is Aldrin standing on a 15 degree slope, or a mountain? The horizon is tilted 15 degrees to his vertical position. Is this supposed to be the curvature of the moon, as it’s smaller than the earth? Or did they land on the side of a mountain?
LikeLike
I wonder too about the curvature of background. Lenses have limitations and can indeed distort. But even at 1/6th size of Earth, the horizon should be flat. If you doubt this, try to detect any curvature in the Earth while at the beach some time. It takes a very fine eye, even some instrumentation.
LikeLike
Dave McKeegan, professional photographer, has done a most interesting job of responding to claims of fakery of Apollo photographs. (Love the thumbnail.)
The famous one of Buzz Aldrin was “enhanced” by NASA but only in the way any photo might be enhanced for publication purposes as explained by Dave and we always have the original to refer to in any case.
Unsurprisingly, one thing the “we didn’t go” propagandists keep the punters in the dark about (excuse the pun) is an extremely important fact about sources of light:
A source of light can be reflected light so multiple sources of light are possible without artificial light.
Also, Mark, a full lunar day-night cycle on the Moon lasts about 29.5 Earth days (29 days, 12 hours, and 44 minutes).
One of my two simple rules of critical thinking is:
Aim to prove your hypothesis wrong
This means that in addition to doing my best to look for anything that challenges my belief whenever something is presented that challenges it I take a look.
Mark and your readers, is it one of your rules too? If not, why not?
LikeLike
Actually, the video I posted above doesn’t relate to the famous Buzz Aldrin photo – nevertheless it’s still relevant.
This is the video on the famous Buzz Aldrin photo.
LikeLike
Actually 2:
I didn’t realise Dave McKeegan did so many videos which might suggest the subject was the famous Buzz Aldrin photo.
This is the video where he goes into detail on the famous photo – but all three videos are most enlightening on the subject of
Apollo photography … if you’re remotely interested in it.
LikeLike
Oh yes, I am remotely interested and then some. I’ll be having a look at all of this later today.
I have watched a program called “Mythbusters” and assume these same guys have also examined the Apollo photographs? Excuse me if this is what I will see later, as I am yet to view these.
LikeLike
No connection to Mythbusters, Mark. While Dave may say some of the same things as other analysts he says a lot of things I’ve never heard before.
LikeLike
Interesting video, but I see quite a bit of three things, misdirection, and answering questions not asked, and not answering questions asked.
LikeLike