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
In a zero (or 1/6) gravity (I wasn’t sure if you were making a joke, I think you were), people actually get taller, says AI.
LikeLike
Yes it was my attempt at a parody of NASA or Petra there’s an answer for everything meme. And I thought the 1/6 shrinkage of our pictured astronaut was a funny coincidence.
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
Mark
Its standard procedure to not answer the actual questions being asked. But some of the ways he ignores and addresses so poorly different problems make it seem as if he is intentionally doing a poor job. I had a discussion about this with AI that was interesting. It tried to convince me that they just don’t care about the small number of people that can see through their controlled opposition but I’m not sure that’s correct.
I looked at a debunking (your favourite word?) of Simon Shacks Tycho theory and was amazed that every single criticism of it was already covered on his forum. I sat for hours trying to work out what was going on. Was it a double fake trying to push his theory to a certain audience. Was it lazy debunking. Was it the appropriate response that takes care of the vast majority of people.
I actually find these questions the interesting ones. Same thing with medicine and diet and financial advice. Do they intentionally leave options for us (I suspect they do), do they just stuff up (again I suspect so), is what they do good enough to achieve their goals (obviously yes, on most occasions).
LikeLike
My experience in “debunking”, not my favorite word, is that the word itself was contrived by Intel because they needed something terse and final to end a discussion.
Regarding other manners of deflecting honest questions, misdirection is the primary tool. Others are to avoid open forums, limiting question to those from known friends, usually planted. They are advised that if they are openly challenged by knowledgeable people, to get up and leave. Then there is a tool as followed by all politicians, “If you don’t like the question asked, answer a different one” and to give long-winded answers so as to dominate the forum in the allowed time.
I like your comments, as you are on a different and elevated platform. You’ve gone places I have not, and i need that exposure.
LikeLike
So what was your conclusion at the end of this Alex about the Tychos theory? I read probably 95% of the material there as of 2025, after that the forums really dried up.
There was a very interesting book called the Globe stands Firm I read that was written ~1900 by a dissenting scholar, that makes a case for the Earth being fixed in space, with the other objects rotating around it. It would of course require the sun to rotate around the earth everyday. The issue with the Earth supposedly rotating as it does, is the clouds and atmosphere do not move in relation to Earth, or very slowly, and it would require the Earth to be basically a perpetual motion machine, as I see it, rotating at the same rate for many eons, to fit the present theory. Unless the rotation of the Earth and Sun were driven by some alternative mechanism, like a magnetic coupling, which makes more intuitive sense. The standard theory of gravity and orbits leaves something to be desired.
However the Tycho’s theory has many assumptions, like Mars and the Sun are twin stars, and that they are numerous, and Shack acting like a born again Christian pushing this theory so hard, and pushing back against all criticism. I think most of his forum is/was very honest, and open to diverse ideas, until he got obsessed with the Tychos model.
LikeLike
Before I address your comment I’d like to establish what you regard as the rules of critical thinking you follow, Mark, or whether you follow any rules you would identify as such or … ?
You addressed this comment to me on my last post, Mark:
“I suggest we ditch the expression “critical thinking,” since as you use it it only means “what I think”.”
I most strenuously argue against this assertion because – as I say – I follow two rules of critical thinking and following these two rules means I definitely don’t put forward (as much as possible) simply “what I think” (except where specified):
— Aim to prove your hypothesis wrong
— Focus on the most tangible, relevant items in the first instance.
LikeLike
I don’t have rules in place like that, as life presents too many curve balls. One has to be open to all possibilities. Each idea has to stand on its own or be discarded. As my dad once said of on of life’s most perplexing phenomenon, relationships, “Women are complicated.”
The idea of disproof is commonly espoused in science, but rarely employed. For instance, experiments used to “isolate” viruses are widely criticized, and the process has been, in my mind, discredited. The answer by virologists is to isolate themselves among friends and bury their work in complicated jargon.
In your case, I see all disproof of hypothesis as coming from your opponents, to which you often give a short shrift. Merely watching the McKeegan film, for instance, rises all kinds of questions which you should have asked, but did not.
LikeLike