I have always insisted that the visual records from the lunar missions, and the moon landings themselves,
have to be treated seperately.
This is always an incredibly-contentious area for discussion, and one that seems to raise emotions very fast.
Whilst your statement is undoubtedly-correct
We tend to forget that the Moon is an alien environment, one which we are not equipped to interpret easily.
I feel this position creates an immediately anti-analytical shield of irreducable complexity and the requirement to adopt almost a faith-based inarguable acceptance, when it comes to all Apollo
imagery.
It worries me that so many highly technical and scientific people see absolutely no contradictions/paradoxes in the entire catalogue of Apollo mission photographs and film footage.
This is not a straightforward binary propositional context.
Identification of genuinely-puzzling aspects within Apollo lunar imagery does not automatically make the person so doing a conspiracy believer or an idiot, but this automatic articulation has become something of a new orthodoxy.
If there is anywhere on the internet (and within society) where people could and should question reality, it is within the infinitely-agnostic halls of Fortean studies, with this valuable and venerable little forum.
I'd ask (perhaps even beg) that members of this forum genuinely and objectively take a proper look at what could be considered to be puzzling aspects of some of these pictures.
Take as an example the astronaut image in the post two above. Let's
not attempt to reconcile a ray-traced relationship between him, and his shadow. Ignore the apparent absence of a back-pack in the silhouette, and other possible anomalies in that ground profile shape.
Look just at that single footprint in the lunar dust. Behind his left foot. Not over-trodden. Not accompanied by any others, leading into that position. His suit is clearly covered in dust, and there are lots of other Apollo mission pictures where there are smudged/multiple footprints in the moon's surface. But not here- at all.
I'm not some kind of evangelist for Moon Hoax Theories, but I am inescapably caught in a trap. I can find lots and lots of inarguably-odd aspects within Apollo imagery, with almost zero effort (by this, I mean specifics). This is also underpinned by my overall gut feeling regarding the style/composition/context of much of the mission imagery, and it does
not feel right.
Again, for the avoidance of doubt, I feel we must treat discussion and arguments about the Apollo missions as being entirely-seperate from their purported documentation. Please.
Speaking as someone who watched the landings as broadcast on live TV, a true Apollo-era kid, I find the reactions of young adults that are introduced to Apollo mission pictures for the first time to be very informative. They are clearly impressed by them, at first impression. The overall effect is one of awe and respect.
And then, if you ask some of the more enquiring and questioning children for their deeper impressions (these digital natives that will inherit this world after we are long gone) regarding many of these pictures- younger ones will tend to begin saying that "they look a bit like models" or "they look quite realistic" or "why does that look a bit weird?". Because they're substantially-correct in their concerns (in my opinion).
Without any applying any interventional defences of it being a unique setting, or an unprecidented context, a significant proportion of lunar mission imagery really
does look very unrealistic. And that's even before applying any level of technical analysis.