Before I begin disassembling this over blown nonsense, I want to quickly touch on something pertaining to the person who has performed a most embarassingly inept photographic analysis at Aulis.
Namely Jack White.
Here is a short excerpt from the House Select Committee concerning supposed discrepancies with backyard photos and Oswald's rifle during a JFK hearing, this is what he said:-
Mr. WHITE. As I said, I am not a scientist. I don't indulge in that sort of thing. [...]
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, I just have one question.
Mr. WHITE. All right.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. When you did this study, did you compute photogrammetrically the effect of tilt on the way that the length of an object appears in a photograph?
Mr. WHITE. I conducted a study by photographing a yardstick from three different-
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, answer my question. Did you compute photogrammetrically----
Mr. WHITE. What is "photogrammetrically"? ...... Describe to me what "photogrammetrically" is.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. I just have one more question Mr. White. Do you know what photogrammetry is?
Mr. WHITE. No.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. I have no further questions. Thank you.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, I just have one question.
Mr. WHITE. All right.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. When you did this study, did you compute photogrammetrically the effect of tilt on the way that the length of an object appears in a photograph?
Mr. WHITE. I conducted a study by photographing a yardstick from three different-
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, answer my question. Did you compute photogrammetrically----
Mr. WHITE. What is "photogrammetrically"? ...... Describe to me what "photogrammetrically" is.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. I just have one more question Mr. White. Do you know what photogrammetry is?
Mr. WHITE. No.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. I have no further questions. Thank you.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/experts.htm
Now, the non scientist, who doesn't know what photogrammetry is!!....then proceeds to make the most inept of studies on the Apollo records.
In this post I shall simply refute his conclusion of the "superlight" theory to light the Apollo video footage. Here is a youtube video I made on the subject:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWyjuCGEODU
And part 2 that completely refutes this stupid theory:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBVjjPzU8SQ
Another youtuber has performed an analysis of studio lighting to show how shadows behave with lighting. To suggest a studio light could mimic the luminosity of the Sun, which in turn is the only thing that could light such vast areas, is simply ludicrous.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ONk27fN5rg
Finally, at the end of that page quoted in the "wall of spam", the ineptitude continues with a simply daft analysis of the Heiligenschein effect caused by the volcanic nature of the Lunar surface.
Read This Page:-
Lunar Retro-Reflection Phenomena
Amazingly he comments about shadow directions, converging (due in fact to the depression in the surface). Now I wonder in any way, how he would account for single solid dark shadows, with the implicit suggestion that more than one light source was used???
Same thing occurs on Earth, when the Sun is low, and the grass has dew(droplets, similar in reflectivity to the volcanic beads on the Moon).
