========
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: MORE SUSPICIOUS NASA PHOTOGRAPHS
From: s320419@student.uq.edu.au (Adam Dodd)
Date: 1 Oct 1995 10:42:15 GMT

Yes, I'm back. There are more problems with some NASA photos and other 
stuff that ignorant old me just cannot understand. I am appealing to the 
wisdom of others (resentful though they are of this) in the hope that the 
problems may be rectified free of ridicule (yeah, right).

NASA PHOTO #AS11-37-5437
------------------------

This was taken on July 20, 1969 and shows the shadow of the engine nozzel 
of the orbitting module. The nozzel has a diameter of 8.5 feet. The 
module orbitted at 69 nautical miles (79 statute miles) above the Moon's 
surface. The 8.5. foot diamter nozzle is casting a massive shadow on the 
lunar surface even though it is supposedly nearly 80 miles away.

NASA PHOTO #AS12-49-7278 (Again)
--------------------------------
This was allegedly taken by Pete Conrad of Al Bean, and shows Conrad with 
a 2nd shadow. There is NO equipment anywhere near Conrad which could have 
caused this shadow; the photograph is clear enough to eastablish this, 
despite what others have said about the 'originally published' copy.
The shadow eminates from Conrad and the shape of his body fits the shape 
of the shadow, which has two legs and a torso. If the sun was behind 
Conrad, this would explain the shadow IN FRONT of him, which extends 
FORWARD and to the RIGHT. But there is also a bright spotlight IN FRONT 
of him and to his LEFT. This spotlight is visible behind Al Bean, whom 
Conrad was facing. The spotlight is shining on Conrad; this is evident 
because the ground around him is illuminated, which is consistent with 
spotlight light. But Conrad's shadow should extend BACK and to his RIGHT, 
PARALLEL with the light source-- the spotlight. Conrad's shadow, however, 
extends BACK and to his LEFT. His shadow is non=parallel with the 
spotlight's light.

--Why would the astronauts need to even use a spotlight in sunlight 20% 
brighter than Earth? W ehave established that this is why the stars don't 
show up (the lunar surface is too bright), so why the need for a spotlight?

--The mettallic tune in Bean's hand has no shadow side, indicating a 
flash was used. Again, why use a flash in such bright light?

THE STARS, OR LACK OF THEM
--------------------------

"The sky is black, you know...It's a very dark sky," -Neil Armstrong in 
Harry Hurt III's 'For All Mankind'.

"My God, the stars are everywhere; above me on all sides, even below me 
somewhat, down there next to that obscure horizon. The stars are bright 
and they are steady." -Michael Collins, Gemini 10 mission.

"I can't see the Earth, only the black, starless sky behind the 
Agena...As I slowly cartwheel away from the Agena, I see nothing but the 
black sky for several seconds." -Michael Collins, Apollo 11 mission.

How can some astronauts see stars and others see just black? Collins 
reported not being able to even see the Earth during Apollo 11. Unless 
his eyes work like a camera and block out the light of the stars, I am 
puzzled as why he should not have seen stars the whole time. Same goes 
for Armstrong.

CARRYING THE FIRE: BY MICHAEL COLLINS
-------------------------------------
This book has a photograph of Collins inside the anti-gravity cabin as 
the plane flew an outside loop to eliminate gravity temporarily. This 
photo was taken 3 years before his Gemini 10 spacewalk. In the photo, he is 
holding the propulsion rod in his RIGHT hand.

In the centre section of that same book there is a photograph of Collins, 
allegedly taken during his Gemini 10 spacewalk. This photograph is 
IDENTICAL to the first one, except that Collins has been reversed and put 
against a pitch black background. He is now holding the propulsion rod in 
his LEFT hand. Collins' body posture and facial expression match EXACTLY 
in both of these photographs, as do the ripples in his suit. The image of 
Collins used in these photographs is the same one, and has been grafted 
onto one, the other, or perhaps both.
----------------------------------------------------

I really do want answers to these questions, but despite what a lot of 
people seem to think, do -not- want to be called 'ignorant', 'arrogant' 
or 'stupid'. Smiley, Adams, and others who resent my 'ignorance' also 
resent my willingness to learn. If you spent more time answering the 
questions 
instead of calling me names I might not be quite so ignorant and would 
then cease to annoy you so much. 

Adam Dodd.
