Replies

I will probably regret doing this, but:
1. The fact the craft looks low quality doesn’t prove it didn’t exist or didn’t fly.
2. Stars are very much dimmer than a sunlit scene; to see stars in a photograph requires seconds if not minutes of exposure, while day-lit scenes can be captured in 1/500 of a second or less.
3. As a result of perspective, the shadows of objects go in different directions, which is conspicuous in fisheye lens photographs. Notice that the shadow of the photographer in this picture is almost directly straight up, but the shadow of the distant surfer is clearly to his right. https://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/2361078034/Phogo_fisheye.JPG
4. It is a well-known effect that one sees a halo or brightness around the shadow of one’s head, because, in that direction, the shadows of objects are obscured by the objects casting the shadows. http://www.spaceweather.com/swpod2005/07dec05/Zinkova.jpg?PHPSESSID=1hplpeaa73r4f2vs3f7shaqb63
5. The Earth is a sphere, so, at any significant distance, it will look like a circle. But, how much of the surface of Earth that circle covers depends on one’s distance; it only covers half of the surface at infinite viewing distance. One certainly can’t see both South and North America from the altitude of a jet plane. Indeed, the Space Station is only a few hundred miles up, which is not nearly far enough to see all of North America and South America in the same scene.

As I say, I hope I don’t regret this.

I appreciate your effort at putting forth things that would honestly endeavor to get to the truth of the matter at hand. I'm not--as are self-evidently several here--eager to exact a price for anyone's expression of a divergent opinion. Such people apparently have little appreciation for the negativity they introduce, which would stifle needed, healthy debate that is interested in the merits of any argument. I would not try to make you regret anything you say.

Although it's true that the low quality of a craft's appearance does not necessarily prove it didn't exist or fly, one needs to ask oneself whether, given, for example, the Grissom, Chaffee and White Apollo 1 episode, that Americans would have been of a mindset to be so cavalier as to send up a craft that manifested those irregularities and true shortcomings. In those images are literally pieces of tape "holding down" significant coverings. Does that result comport with a thought of, "If I don't do this right, my astronaut-friends could die a horrible death as the craft endured the stresses of accelerations and decelerations?" I don't think so. What quality assurance engineer at Grumman would have allowed his signature beside the sign-offs? At most, a quality assurance engineer that would know there was no life-criticality to such a taped closure.

The silver-foil-like insulation not being used throughout the outer surface does prove that it was not being relied on for shielding through any Van Allen Belt (VAB). A later Challenger flight that got no closer than 350 miles to the VAB generated shared astronaut experiences of "shooting star-like visions," apparently of radiation whizzing through their improved (over Apollo) shielding, with those particles literally passing through their bodies and through their retinas. Apollo astroNOTS going through the VAN for any length of time at all would have necessarily been harrowing if not deadly, particularly given that there was no significant shielding on that Lunar Module pictured. Yet, none of the astroNOTs even mentioned anything about VAB traversal. It think that's the one main reason the Soviets--though they were well ahead of the Americans in almost every measure of space flight--dared to risk such a venture.

I'll grant that the nature of perspective (vis-a-vis shadows) is not obvious to many people and sometimes downright difficult always to discern. The wooded example you put forth suffers from a lack of orthogonality that could aid in discerning the true direction of the shadows on the left. It does properly show that the light source is behind the apparent photographer's head, hence the hot spot. The fish eye (beach) example is already dissimilar from the Hasselblad moon pix, thus of no real comparative use, IMHO. Please consider dealing with the faked moon rock issue.

Although there will be some variation in the size of objects in a hemispheric capture, those differences would have to be very near-distance captures to manifest what you're talking about. None of those NASA images were asserted to have been captured by low-flying jets or by craft in low earth orbit.

Consider the obvious fakery in which NASA was willing to engage in the following example. It's the same, apparently human-crafted prop moon "rock," labeled "C". Once the anomaly was caught and "repaired," the other time not:

As I say, I hope I haven't made you regret anything.

How about the double exposed reticules in the following? This should have been an impossiblity. It wasn't impossible, but they just didn't do the fakery well.

Or how about the thruster that slowed down the LM's descent? Prior to the launch, there was concern it might create such a hole in the surface that the craft might tip into it. Meh, that apparently wasn't a problem. No thruster hole or blast area to be discerned at all! Neither did any dust whatsoever get blowing into the landing gear foot pod. Errrr!