Editor's Note: It was researcher Bill Kaysing who first remarked that photographs should depict dust on the surface of all footpads. Bill reasoned that the descent engine would throw up quantities of lunar dust that would settle on the upper surfaces of the gold foil. "The insulation on the secondary struts of the LM was damaged by heat – but the primary struts were only singed – or covered in soot." Apollo 11 – The NASA Mission Reports Volume 3.

The NewScientist Letters to the Editor:
Missing moon dust
From George Tetbury
"In your article on moon dust you reveal that Apollo 11, 12, 15 and 16 experienced poor visibility while landing (28 May 2005 p.40). But we have photos of the feet of the lander standing on the lunar surface with not a speck of dust on them. If all the dust was blown away during the landing, Neil Armstrong's historic first step would not have left an imprint. What are we to believe?"
Glasgow, UK

 

Backdrops in a studio?

Editor's Note: Perhaps Jack White should have used the word PICTURE instead of IMAGE. It is well known that film manufacturers expose "images" of numbering and lettering using mechanical exposure through masks during manufacture. And a roll of film can be accidentally partially exposed to light during handling. Both of these may "create" images on the film, but neither creates a "picture". A picture can only be formed by a conventional light image passing through a lens aperture. An exception is the passing of X-RAYS through something, forming a shadowgram on film. The above discussion concerens the Hasselblad still photographs and not x-rays, accidental exposures, or manufacturers' markings.

End Note: Everyone expects NASA to behave with honesty and integrity, but in the case of Apollo, both qualities appear to be sadly lacking.