First generation scans of the original show a much more even lighting of the surface. The drop off we do see is caused by a zero-phase angle where because we're looking up-sun, we're seeing more shadow that we do lit areas. This can be aptly shown to work on Earth as well as these images that Jay Windley took for Clavius show.
[qimg]http://www.clavius.org/img/dirt-up.jpg[/qimg]
up-sun
[qimg]http://www.clavius.org/img/dirt-down.jpg[/qimg]
down-sun
The up-sun image is quite clearly darker than the down sun one, even though they are the same piece of dirt.
Doesn't look like the same piece of dirt to me, but I understand what you're trying to say. A cursory perusal of Wikipedia, however, suggests that you don't really understand what you're trying to explain here. If the drop-off is an effect of the zero-phase angle then why does it occur in all directions, including from the object to the camera? Also, the fact that these two photos do
absolutely nothing to demonstrate the effect of drop-off does puzzle me somewhat.
The issue is that the large crosshair should be in the centre of the picture, and it's not. Of course this is because Aulis' version is a publicity shot in which the bottom has been cropped and black added to the area above Aldrin (if you look at the original it cuts off right above his head, and actually removes the very upper right part of the PLSS.) This is really an obvious example of how poorly researched and crappy Aulis' work really is, they couldn't even be bothered getting hold of an original scan before making up stuff.
Now
THIS has to be THE best example yet of foot in mouth in this thread, if not the history of the Forum. The cross-hairs are actually
printed on the photo, or to be precise, have obscured any imagery from the photo, which allows them to 'record' on the photo. No amount of cropping or 'adding', therefore, will alter the position of the cross-hairs
relative to the all-important image recorded. The 'issue', then, is not that the cross-hairs should be in the centre of the picture, but rather how you conclude that Aulis's work is 'poorly researched and crappy' from some innocuous cropping and 'adding' (the reproduction of the 'classic' Aldrin photo on Page 37 of Dark Moon looks
exactly the same as the 'original' posted by you as regards aspect ratio, etc, except for some very minor cropping of the bottom edge and 'adding' to the top edge, if that's what it is, which has
absolutely no bearing on the analysis of the photo).
This is the David Groves work I thought was being disgust (sic). Groves claims to be able to measure the position of the hotspot to a level that is smaller than the actual film grain.
Where,
exactly, does Groves make such 'claim'? If he's guilty of anything it's failing to round off his figures to a level of detail commensurate with the image being analyzed. As pointed out earlier, however, by others as well as me, it makes
absolutely no difference to the conclusions.
Other than that, the work is sloppy ...
Would you care to elaborate?
... but the final conclusion still doesn't rule out the most obvious source of the hotspot, Armstrong's shoulder, which was in the sunlight while the rest of him was in the LM's shadow.
'Most obvious?! You're expecting people to believe that Armstrong's shoulder was sufficient to reflect sunlight to such an intensity that it caused a hot-spot on Aldrin's boot? Do you actually understand what a hot-spot is? What kind of reflective material are you suggesting Armstrong's spacesuit was actually made from? I suppose you're expecting people to believe that it was also Armstrong's shoulder that backlit the entire LM, including inside the exit bay, while Aldrin exited and descended the ladder! I'm sorry, I've got to genuinely echo Belz's sentiment directed at me from earlier - feel free to join reality at any time!
