In many photographs the shadow side of the astronauts is illuminated, while the shadow side of nearby rocks is totally black.
Apollo 17 photograph
AS1714522165 is a good example often used for the above hoax claim. The explanation is apparent from the photo itself. Look at the astronaut's feet and you will see that the shadow in this area is just as dark as that of the foreground rocks. The lunar surface acts as a reflector to illuminate the shadow side of the astronaut. At the elevation of the astronaut's feet, and the foreground rocks, this reflector surface is mostly covered by the adjacent shadows. However, at the elevation of the astronaut's head and torso, the shadows cover a much smaller percentage of the surface. For example, on a flat surface the angular distance from horizon to horizon is 180 degrees. At an elevation of five feet, a one-foot wide shadow subtends an angle of 11.4 degrees, or only 6% of the distance from horizon to horizon. At two inches above the ground, this shadow subtends an angle of 143 degrees, or nearly 80% of the surface. Furthermore, the rocks are darker and less reflective than the astronaut's white space suit.
In many photographs there are lighting hot spots and a darkening of the surface toward the horizon, while Sunlight should not produce hot spots and in an airless environment the surface should not fade.
The hot spots are the result of the lunar soil's (
regolith) tendency to reflect light back toward its source. There are many reasons for this, but it is mostly due to countless tiny glass spheres found in the lunar soil, and formed by meteorite impacts. When you see a photo taken
down sun, away from the Sun, you see what looks like a spotlight around the shadow's head. This is because the light is strongly reflected back toward the Sun, so the soil around the head of the shadow looks very bright. This phenomenon also explains why the surface fades so drastically toward the horizon. It is brightest near the foreground due to sunlight being preferentially reflected back toward the camera. Farther away, the sunlight is preferentially reflected away from the camera, making the ground look dark. This phenomenon can also be observed in wet grass on Earth, as spherical water droplets act like the glass spheres. The technical term for this phenomenon is
Heiligenschein, and is the result of light refraction, reflection, and diffraction on the surface of and inside the glass spheres and/or water droplets. Apollo photographs
AS11405961,
AS12476985,
AS14669233 and
AS1713420435 are very good examples of
Heiligenschein.
In Apollo 11 photograph AS11405903 the horizon is located at eye level, but should have been at chest level because the camera was mounted to Neil Armstrong's chest.
The referenced photograph is the press released version of the most reproduced image from the entire Apollo archive. The claim of the hoax advocates assumes that Aldrin and Armstrong were standing on level ground; however, if Armstrong were standing on higher ground, the apparent elevation of the horizon would rise accordingly. If we look at Armstrong's reflection in the visor, we see the horizon is located at his chest. This shows Armstrong was indeed standing on higher ground with his chest located in approximately the same horizontal plane as Aldrin's eyes. Given this camera position, we see the horizon across Aldrin's eyes as expected. More detail can be seen in the
original. From the original it is also clear that the press release photo was rotated and the top extended with black.
The hoax advocates also point out that the top of Aldrin's backpack should not be visible if the camera was attached to Armstrong's chest. Again, the hoax advocates fail to recognize that Armstrong is standing on higher ground. In addition, Aldrin is leaning forward; thus, exposing the top of his backpack to the camera. Due to the weight of the astronauts' backpacks, a slight forward lean was required to maintain balance.
In Apollo 16 photograph AS1611318339 an astronaut stands on the surface of the Moon in direct sunlight without casting a shadow.
This photo is one of astronaut John Young saluting the US flag. Young's shadow is clearly visible on the ground below him and to the right (his left). His shadow is not attached to his body because Young was leaping off the ground and was elevated about two feet when the photo was taken. There is some very good
corroborating video (in QuickTime format, .mov) of the event. Young made two leaps for the occasion. This is one of the most famous of the Apollo photos and it is surprising that hoax advocates would be unfamiliar with the story behind the photograph. Other comments often made about this photo include (1) the flag appears to be fluttering and (2) the flag's camera facing side should be shaded from the sun. The fluttering issue will be dealt with later. As for the lighting issue, it is obvious that the flag is angled to the right and toward the camera. With the sun to the right, the flag's camera facing side would be sunlit at a shallow angle, which agrees with the shadows on the flag itself.
The astronaut in Apollo 11 photographs AS11405866-AS11405869 should be in the dark, as he is located in the shadow of the lander.
This question about shadows in a lot of the photos taken on the Moon comes up over and over again. What needs to be realized is that the sun, while being the only source of direct light, was not the only light source. Light reflects off everything around the astronauts. Because this is very bright light and the lunar surface already reflects light very well, the reflected light can be very significant.
So the answer to these questions is: reflected light. In the photographs the astronaut is significantly above the ground and is lit by reflected light off the surrounding lunar landscape. The fact he is wearing a pristine white spacesuit also helps, as it reflects most of that light again. So he really shows up against the shadow on the ground below him. The highly reflective white spacesuits also explain some of the light in individual pictures of the astronauts. These were taken with the sun's light reflecting off the photographer, providing a great deal of infill on the astronaut being photographed. Remember that the photographer would be reflecting a lot of light, think of a snowy landscape on a bright winter's day. This is a very common trick also used by photographers on Earth. They get someone to hold up a large sheet of white card or cloth. This reflects the sunlight back across the shadows on the person being photographed, providing a natural infill to any harsh shadows.
If the Sun is the only source of light on the Moon, all shadows should run parallel, instead of going in different directions as in Apollo 16 photograph AS1611318342 and many others.
You'll find lots of Apollo photographs like this on the web with colored lines indicating the directions of the shadows. Without fail they show lines that are very rough guesswork, designed to prove a suspect theory rather than reflecting what the photograph shows. All they prove is that two dimensional photographs cannot completely represent three dimensional features. We all know how lines on a highway appear to diverge as they approach the observer, yet we know they are parallel. Another important factor that comes into play here is the slope of the ground. Let's consider two shadows -- one cast on an upward slope and the other on a downward slope. If viewed from the side, these shadows would appear to go off in different directions. However, if viewed from high above, they would be seen as parallel. In other words, looks can be deceiving. A more correct approach to check for correct shadow placement is to draw lines through the furthest extending points of objects and their corresponding shadow location. These lines should all come together in what is called the
vanishing point. It works for all pictures, whether taken on the Moon or on Earth. There is no evidence of NASA trickery here.
You might also want to ask; if there were more than one light source because spotlights were used, then why do we not see more than one shadow on everything? Surely this would be impossible to avoid, yet no Apollo photograph ever shows that happening.
