Actually, Groves calculates the difference in the height of the lunar surface between Aldrin and the photographer by reference to the entire length of shadow cast by Aldrin's leg from the extremety of his left boot to the point coinciding with his left hip (referring to the photo, the latter is the point approximately where the shadow begins to deviate significantly, adjacent the pronounced boot print bottom left). Because of the low sun angle Aldrin's shadow can be seen to be clearly elongated. Given that Aldrin and the photographer were standing approximately 3.8m apart (calculated by Groves) I would estimate the 'un-measured' distance from the photographer to the nearest point of the shadow measured to be under 2m. Therefore, if the difference in height over the distance of shadow measured is only 10cm at the most, as calculated by Groves, then the remainder of the difference in height, namely 50cm approximately, must be accounted for over a distance of less than 2m, that's an average gradient of around 1:4,or 25%! I don't see any such gradients in any part of the photo, so we can only conclude, if the camera was indeed chest mounted, that the photographer was standing atop something. Maybe a 50cm-high rock (similar to all the others in the photo), as you do when you're taking photos!
If Aldrin and Armstrong were 3.8 meters apart, then Aldrin would have to be 227cm tall. Even allowing around an extra 15cm for boots and helmet, he's only about 195cm tall (note that his leaning forward also shortens him). A quick back of the envelope calculation based on his taking up 58% of the frame from top to bottom and the FOV of the camera being 53.5° from top to bottom, put the two at a distance of only around 3.2 metres.
Using the shadow for measurements is rather a strange thing to do since shadow length relies on knowing, the angle of the sun, the slope of the terrain (and how it changes), and in this case determining the effects of the convex reflector. Quite simply it is impossible to determine what the length of the shadow should be or is (though it seems to stretch slightly beyond Armstrong's position) since none of these factors is actually known and trying to do so is simply guesswork. You have no way of knowing what the rise in the terrain is between the photographer and the subject, and your above waffle doesn't prove anything except that you're taking wild stabs in the dark to justify your claim about it.
I commented on this earlier. He's hardly 'in a depression' - towards the lip of of it, if you ask me. But it doesn't matter, Groves takes account of the surface height difference.
That "hardly in a depression" is almost in the centre of a 10-15cm deep crater.
How does that put Armstrong 'above' Aldrin? Did Armstrong have a unique spacesuit that prevented the same thing happening to him?! In fact, the photographer is also leaning forward (or looking down), hence the position of the centre cross-hair over Aldrin's right ankle.
It doesn't put him "above" Aldrin, other then explaining why parts of the top of the suit that normally wouldn't be visible are actually visible. It also shortens Aldrin vertically.
Have you noticed that Aldrin's left leg outer is essentially straight, but the the shadow is curved? There's a clue!
Have you noticed that the ground the shadow lies on goes up immediately from Aldrin's position, then reaching the rim of the crater descends again before rising once more? Have you also noticed that the direction the shadow lies is not the direction to Armstrong? (Before you say that it is in the helmet, realise that the helmet is a convex reflector) Nothing the shadow does gives any conclusion as to Aldrin and Armstrong's respective heights. The only thing it tells us is that Aldrin is standing in a depression, something we already knew.
Still missing the point! This explanation relies on the assumption that the camera is chest mounted. Groves' analysis shows that it could not be.
No, Groves' analysis claims the camera would be higher than Aldrin's chest height, and then he extrapolates that to mean it was higher the Armstrong's chest height if they are on level ground. The fact they aren't nullifies his conclusion so he tries to fudge that the ground is uneven so as to keep his wanted conclusions.
Shown not to be the case!
Sorry I disagree. The change in the ground under Aldrin's shadow has zero to do with the lie of the ground between Aldrin and Armstrong since the shadow isn't on that section of ground.
Beyond all reasonable doubt.
Why do you expect such a higher level of evidence for Apollo being fact than you do for it being fiction? Can you prove that it was Hoaxed beyond all reasonable doubt? If not then how can you demand proof that high for it being real? Surely the better idea is to put the two theories together and see which has the most and best evidence to support its position.
Doesn't look like the same piece of dirt to me
Funnily enough that is sort of the point to the images, they look different depending on if you are looking up sun or down sun because in one you can see the shaded areas so it looks textured and darker while the other they are hidden from your view so it looks bright and untextured.
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?
It doesn't occur in all direction, it only occurs in the up-sun direction. Look at the ground being reflected in Aldrin's visor. It is much brighter than the surface behind him and is evenly bright all the way to the horizon. The drop off is only in the up-sun direction where the shadows of the rocks and craters make the surface look darker and as you look further away you are seeing more shadow and less sunlit area.
Also, the fact that these two photos do absolutely nothing to demonstrate the effect of drop-off does puzzle me somewhat.
They demonstrate the zero-effect of the shadows being seen or not seen, the "drop-off" is merely that on a larger scale.
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.
Wow, that makes very little sense at all. Firstly the crosshairs are NOT printed onto the photo, they are created when the image is taken by the means of a reseau grid that sits directly on top of the film. This means that the fiducials are a fixed part of each image that is taken, the largest one being in the exact centre of the image. I have no idea what you are going on about the "position of the cross-hairs relative to the all-important image recorded," Aulis' claim is that since the large cross hair isn't in the centre of the photo that there is an issue with the image because the large crosshair is supposed to be in the very centre, and in theirs it isn't. This is because the image they use is cropped and the fiducial have been moved in respect to the borders of the image. The large cross hair has nothing to do with important information or anything else, it merely shows where the camera was pointed.
What kind of reflective material are you suggesting Armstrong's spacesuit was actually made from?
The outer cover was white beta cloth, a material that is 90% reflective of sunlight. Do you suggest this is not a strong enough light source?
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!
No, that was done by the light reflecting of the rather large reflector behind Armstrong. The lunar surface.
