chopstick-shadow legs question

cuboctahedron · #1 (**permalink**) 06-March-2004, 09:04 PM

There is on image, probably discussed somewhere, I found interesting regarding a shade.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/research/apo...14/64/9089.jpg

I believe the Aulis folks mention it as wel.

Is there any explaination why the shadows seems to be so small?

kucharek · #2 (**permalink**) 06-March-2004, 09:16 PM

That's simple perspectivic shortening. Think about the shadow a cylinders throws on the floor. Seen from above, it's as wide as the cylinder itself. But seen from the side, the lower the eye goes, the "thinner" the shadow gets. It's like a stripe lying on the ground from left to right. The lower the angle you watch it from, the more narrow it looks.
Just go outside into the sun and check it.
The HB imply that a shadow has to look as wide as the object that makes it. That's simply not true.

Harald

Glom · #3 (**permalink**) 06-March-2004, 09:22 PM

Either way, there's nothing else that could cause that so they can't really draw any conclusions.

cuboctahedron · #4 (**permalink**) 06-March-2004, 09:29 PM

It's a good explainantion.

Regarding moon-hoaxes, what was/is the most debated image that is distputed nowadays anyway?

Glom · #5 (**permalink**) 06-March-2004, 09:30 PM

Not really sure. The major proponents have essentially disappeared, apart from Sibrel who is only in the business of regurgitating the old bilk.

cuboctahedron · #6 (**permalink**) 06-March-2004, 09:42 PM

Just one last image I am intereted in to be debunked

It's at http://www.aulis.com/nasa6.htm , the part of page where to mountains are compared with eachother, claiming the should have been a background (somewhere in the middle).

At first, it seems very plausable, hence the question.

Glom · #7 (**permalink**) 06-March-2004, 09:53 PM

Forgive me while I go on a bender.

JMV · #8 (**permalink**) 06-March-2004, 09:53 PM

http://www.clavius.org/img/as15-registered.jpg
Total credits to JayUtah for this one. Those pics weren't taken from exactly same place and the astronaut who took the other one wasn't standing straight, so flag poles shouldn't line up precisely like in the aulis pic.

[edit:wrong tense]

cuboctahedron · #9 (**permalink**) 06-March-2004, 10:30 PM

I did some foto-shopping myself, (look like
http://www24.brinkster.com/haagsepatrick/mars.html )

(hopefully my bandwidth-limit won't let me down now).

The compared images on the Aulis site, do not have the moon-buggy, displayed in the post above. The foto's were taken not to far from eachother, so indeed the background should remain about the same.

Don't worry, not be be a moon-hoaxer here

just trying to see what accounts for the differences.

johnwitts · #10 (**permalink**) 06-March-2004, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cuboctahedron

I did some foto-shopping myself, (look like
http://www24.brinkster.com/haagsepatrick/mars.html )

(hopefully my bandwidth-limit won't let me down now).

Anyhow, it does seem, on my composed picture, that the apollo LEM seems to have a different angle compared to the mountains.

Where these pictures though taken near each other?

Not really is the only answer I can give here. I came to the same conclusion about the mountains a few years ago. I fact, when I made a combined image like the ones above, that was the moment when I realised that Percy and the others were on a blag to obtain my money, not doing serious research.

I did find a couple of movie clips, probably linked from the ALSJ showing Jim and Dave taking these photos. They do appear to wander off to slightly different spots to get their photos. I'll try and see if I can find them again.

Try these...

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...5v.1635557.ram

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...5v.1635901.ram

[Edited to add links]

Glom · #11 (**permalink**) 06-March-2004, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aulis

However, Bennett and Percy have always stated that man may well have travelled to the Moon in 1969 but maintain that the Apollo imagery is not the true and accurate portrayal of such an event.

And of course those who did went on deliberate suicide missions according to the Aulis version. Speculation piled upon speculation so they can have their cake and eat it to; combine UFO conspiracism with Apollohoax conspiracism. I believe this is what you might call those wicked men who had the oliphants in The Lord of the Conspiracy Theories.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aulis

As a result of the interviews they have conducted with those involved in the Apollo program it became very clear to them that there were numerous discrepancies between the information presented to the public, and the facts as known to some NASA contractors. These issues were to join the photographic and TV anomalies as worthy of examination. So a book that started out as an investigation into the photographic and film record became, of necessity, a much deeper look into the events before, during and after Project Apollo.

In other words, they just wanted to rant about every conspiracy theory ever conceived.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aulis

While the video What happened on the Moon? sets out some of the problems inherent in the presentation of NASA’s record of Apollo, only their book DARK MOON: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers covers the deeper implications and issues of this subject.

So buy it now! Priced £16.99 from all bookstores too large to be concerned with the integrity of one item.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aulis

All the objections as to why it might have been impossible to keep such a ‘secret’ have also been addressed in detail by these two authors. While most of the questions sent to our website find their answers within the pages of this book it is clear that many of the critics of Bennett and Percy’s Apollo hoaxed record theory have either taken badly timed coffee breaks whilst watching What happened on the Moon? or have not read DARK MOON at all.

So it appears Jay is right. We respond and they come back with, "Everything we have to say can be found in our book and video. Buy it now, priced £16.99 from all bookstores too large to be concerned with the integrity of one item."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aulis

How did you [the authors] become interested in the subject of a hoax in the first place?

When David Percy was talking to a cryogenics expert, who worked for Grumman Aerospace (the NASA contractor that built the Lunar Module) this highly respected engineer stated that there were inconsistencies in the appearance of the rocket exhausts from the LM’s engines as depicted in the Apollo film and TV coverage.

Ooh! A cryogenics expert. I'm very impressed. He must know what he's talking about. Except the LM DPS, APS and RCS didn't use cryogenic propellents, merely cryogenic helium for pressurisation. The appearance of the exhaust plume is partly due to the structure of the engine and partly due to the propellents, both of which don't involve cryogenics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aulis

Are there different shadow lengths visible in the Apollo photos? Some people are saying that all the shadow variations can be explained, is that right?

No, that is not right. There are, without doubt, serious discrepancies in shadow lengths and the direction of shadows cast by astronauts as well as objects (such as rocks). Take for example these images from Apollo 11:

<Apollo 11 16mm DAC frame 110:08:49 approx; annotated>
<Apollo 11 16mm DAC frame somewhere around that time; annotated>
<AS11-40-5905>

The two Apollo 11 astronauts-(Pictures 1 & 1a) captured by the Data Acquisition Camera (DAC) mounted high on the LM-each have very different shadow lengths.

Interesting how they listened not to the detailed rebuttle given to them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aulis

2 shows that essentially the terrain is flat, therefore the lack of variation in surface height cannot be a valid reason for any shadow to vary in length.

ROTFLMAO! It's flat apart from the undulations clearly indicated by malformed shadows. It's a shame Percy and Bennett are so unable to notice what they're seeing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aulis

These shadow lengths increase and decrease as the astronauts move about in the area covered by the DAC. An explanation for this anomaly is that the two men are standing in such close proximity to a large artificial light source that as either one moves nearer to or further away from this light, the shadow of each astronaut changes accordingly-as demonstrated in the video What happened on the Moon?

This is wrong in so many ways. The shadows in the second DAC frame clearly are reasonably parallel, with a hint of convergence, while if there was a nearby light source causing the difference observed in the first frame, the shadows should noticeably diverge, not converge. In addition, the astronaut further from the light source should have a longer shadow, not a shorter one as observed on the first frame.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aulis

A typical example of converging shadows is to be found in the Apollo 17 record, in this instance Schmitt (Picture 3) is raking what purports to be the lunar surface.

<AS17-134-20425>

Look at his diagonal shadow (on the left of the frame) and compare it with the totally different horizontal shadows cast by the rocks on the upper right. Then notice the diagonal shadow cast by the rock middle right.

They use the simplistic trick of taking the longest aspect of the shadow and assuming that it corresponds to the shadow direction. This is wrong for irregular shaped objects. The image is also of rather poor quality that the exact shape of the shadows cannot be inferred. The horizontal lines are tenuous and wishful thinking.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aulis

Here is a further photo from Apollo 17 (Picture 4) where the shadow of the photographer and the shadow of the rock (at the top right of the image) are virtually at right angles. True whistle-blowing in action.

<AS17-136-20744

In such a downsun shot, we'd expect huge convergence of shadows. Besides, the longest aspect trick has been brought to bear for objects that are fairly round. It is not an accurate way for determining shadow direction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aulis

How do you reply to Ian W Goddard http://users.erols.com/igoddard/moon01.htm who says that his experiments show that your statements regarding diverging shadows are wrong?

When the entirety of an image is illuminated by the parallel rays of the Sun horizontally across a scene (rather than from an artificial light source) the objects in the distance as well as the objects in the foreground cast shadows in the same direction. You can see what we mean by looking at Picture 5.

<photo of a promenade; presumably own shot>

Notice that the shadows from each item in the scene fall to the right of the photograph, irrespective of the relative height or shape of each object.

Oh dear. Talk about selective presentation and spoon feeding. They take a photograph of shadow direction cross-sun, where there'd be little perspective effect, and on a flat promenade.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aulis

Now compare Picture 5 with this Apollo 14 lunar surface image:

<AS14-68-9487>

Picture 6 is typical of the result one would expect if the light for the scene is not from the Sun, but is emanating from an artificial light source generating a beam that spreads out from its relatively close source, thereby producing non-parallel shadows. Virtually all the rocks in this scene (some are scattered singly on the terrain, some are grouped on a low mound) cast their shadows diagonally towards the right-hand corner of the picture, not horizontally to the right, as is the case with the shadow of the LM in the distance. On close examination the rocks themselves appear to be illuminated by a light source that is positioned more three-quarters to the rear, than side-on to the object, as indicated by the diagonal yellow line.

It's interesting how even fellow HBers are retreating from this particular example as being too easy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aulis

This photograph is worth studying carefully.

It is the combination of factors that makes this image suspect. For example, whilst the foreground rocks have dense shadows rendering part of these objects totally black, detail is still visible on the shadow side of the LM. Interestingly, the shadow side of the astronaut has no dense, dark black shadow at all. It would seem that he has been selectively filled-in with extra light.

Fill light is provided by the lunar surface and selectivity is based on angle of reflection required to illuminate the shaded side of the object; lower objects require more acute scattering angles which delivers less light.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aulis

You say that there is evidence of multiple-use backdrops in the Apollo moon photos. What does this mean exactly?

In the still imagery as well as in the ‘live’ TV coverage there are numerous instances where any given placing of the LM can have a variety of ‘interchangeable’ mountain backgrounds. For example Michael DeWoody http://www.md-webdesign.com/moon has made some excellent comparisons between different Apollo pictures. Take for example the Apollo 15 mission.

<AS15-88-11863>
<As15-88-11865>
<the above photos superimposed on top of each other>

As you can see, the position of the astronaut, the flag, and the LM are virtually the same in the two photographs-the lateral displacement between the two camera positions is minimal. However, in Picture 7 the mountain background is a perspective view (at an angle to the photographer) whereas the mountain in Picture 8 is square on to the camera. It is important to bear in mind that the distant mountain is supposed to be over 13,000 feet high and more than four miles away. Therefore a camera located a few feet either to the left or right would make no practical difference to the perspective of the mountain.

It's not just lateral displacement, it's also angular displacement. Dave Scott turned in between those photos. Using the astronaut as a locator is unacceptable because they have no guarantees the astronaut didn't move between shots. There were three tourist shots taken. The ones shown were the first and the third. There was ample time from Irwin to shuffle a little bit. The flag and the LM on the other hand may be assumed to be stationary, and they show a marked difference in relative position as seen by the camera, hence the evidence of angular displacement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aulis

Were the Command Modules and the LMs fully protected against solar flares, coronal ejections or other types of radiation found in space?

This subject of radiation dangers is dealt with in great detail in DARK MOON. Depending on the source consulted there are different widths and danger zones attributed to the Van Allen radiation belts, which become as elastic as the needs of the moment require. Even today NASA’s defenders are quoting different figures for these belts, all of them much slimmer than those set out by Dr. James van Allen.

Refinements in measurements.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aulis

According to an expert at DERA in the UK: "Radiation is the biggest show stopper affecting mankind’s exploration of the universe."

The lack of a coat is the biggest show stopper for my walk to Birmingham city centre. But that doesn't mean I can't take out the rubbish.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aulis

As far as the probability of encountering SPEs or solar flares went, the thin-walled Apollo craft (from 8 through to 12) travelled during a solar maximum period, a time when there was a likelyhood of three or four severe flares per mission. The ability to predict solar flare activity was, and still is, very poor indeed. The CSM did not have any shielding against such an event. Neither did the LMs, nor did the spacesuits.

Were these flares major? Total radiation boogey man. They should work for Greenpeace.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aulis

If you were responsible for the continuance of funding of your agency, would you have risked your very public astronauts being fried, live on screen, to the sound of music? For this very reason alone we maintain that surrogates would have been a necessity to cover for the named astronauts.

Speculation involving unnamed astronauts willingly going on a suicide mission to maintain a deception.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aulis

If it was known that an Apollo astronaut had died, whenever anyone looks at the Moon they would be reminded of a dead American astronaut up there on the lunar surface.

I suppose that's why Normandy has no tourists. I reminds people too much of dead soldiers from D-Day. Oh wait, Normandy does have tourists.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aulis

NASA and others maintain that a blinding swirl of dust was blown out from under the descending LM to a distance of about one mile from the landing site-according to some accounts this is the reason there’s no dust covering the footpads of the LM, so how is it that there’s plenty of dust left around the landing site to make footprints in?

A very good point-to see or not to see that is the issue! The official Apollo record had variations on ‘dust/no dust’ with some of the astronauts claiming there was very little dust-hardly any dust at all. And the argument for different conditions at different locations is rather difficult to sustain, as there were no massive "swirls of dust" visible in any of the ‘live’ TV coverage of LM take offs. What we did see was a bright burst as the Mylar covering breaks apart at lift-off (see Picture 15 an Apollo 14 image). Yet apparently on Apollo 11 there was enough dust to permanently clog up the laser reflector-placed some 40 feet (distance from LM dependant on the information source) from the take off position.

We don't maintain that a swirl of dust was blown out. We maintain a gentle stream of dust was blown out in ballistic motion away from the LM, hence no dust on the footpads. But that doesn't stop astronauts kicking huge amounts of dust onto the LRRR. There is too much simplification. Engine activity is not the only thing that can displace dust. As for footprints, not all the dust was blown away, just some of it.

______________________________

I skipped out the bits about Cydonia and alien structures. I also missed out the bit about them answering questions from those who quoted Hoagland, partly because it's Hoagland and partly because it deals with film, which I don't know much about.

cuboctahedron · #12 (**permalink**) 06-March-2004, 10:56 PM

The above post I agree to. Most of them are debunked anyhow. It's just the explaination for these two images I'd like to see resovled too.

Quote:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...5v.1635557.ram

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...5v.1635901.ram

[Edited to add links]

The links don't seem to be working for me :-?

frogesque · #13 (**permalink**) 06-March-2004, 11:04 PM

In the aulis article, the link given to Michael DeWoody's website is broken so at best the back up for these claims is suspect. A whois search didn't find any reference to md_webdesign.com either. I smell a cold blooded aquatic vertibrate!

Also, any good photograper will tell you that minor differences in camera siting can make a very big difference to the composition of the shot and what I see here to my inexpert untrained eye is simply that one of these guys was a much better intuative photographer than the other and I think the overlays shown in the post by JMV show that the distant background is the same in both but the location of the camera was slightly different (by a few feet)

johnwitts · #14 (**permalink**) 06-March-2004, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cuboctahedron

The above post I agree to. Most of them are debunked anyhow. It's just the explaination for these two images I'd like to see resovled too.

Quote:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...5v.1635557.ram

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...5v.1635901.ram

[Edited to add links]

The links don't seem to be working for me :-?

They work, cos I've just watched them, but they did take rather a long time to load. Over a minute each to start streaming. Also, you need real one player. Anyway, they show when and where the photos were taken. One was taken by Jim, who then ran back and gave the camera to Dave. That's why Dave still has his camera on his chest in Jim's photo. Dave then takes the camera and runs off to somewhere near where Jim was to take his photo, but seems to be a little to the side and further back. He takes a few shots and mutters something about exposures. You need both links because this all takes place at the end of the first clip and the start of the second.

JayUtah · #15 (**permalink**) 07-March-2004, 02:57 AM

The picture of the astronaut whose leg shadows appear narrow is taken looking up the slope of a crater rim. That's clear from the context of the other photos on the roll, which are a pan from this location. You can clearly see the slope in the other pictures. This is significant because the photographer is considerably lower down the slope. This too is clear in context. A chest-mounted camera in these circumstances would be only a short height above the ground. The acute angle, as mentioned, foreshortens the shadow. The conspiracists do not consider this and assume it is taken from normal height reasonably level ground.

Donnie B. · #16 (**permalink**) 07-March-2004, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glom

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aulis

These shadow lengths increase and decrease as the astronauts move about in the area covered by the DAC. An explanation for this anomaly is that the two men are standing in such close proximity to a large artificial light source that as either one moves nearer to or further away from this light, the shadow of each astronaut changes accordingly-as demonstrated in the video What happened on the Moon?

This is wrong in so many ways. The shadows in the second DAC frame clearly are reasonably parallel, with a hint of convergence, while if there was a nearby light source causing the difference observed in the first frame, the shadows should noticeably diverge, not converge. In addition, the astronaut further from the light source should have a longer shadow, not a shorter one as observed on the first frame.

...clearly demonstrating that the light source must have been at a distance greater than infinity. Since it's well known that the Sun is less than an infinite distance from the Moon, the photos are obvious fakes.

This is just soooo easy... :P :wink:

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: