PDA

View Full Version : Impossible Nasa shots



thomheg
2011-Mar-14, 08:38 AM
Hi Bauties

look at these pictures
1:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS11-40-5882
2:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS11-40-5906
3:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS11-40-5930

What do they have in common:
1:
the horizon is exactly even, like drawn with a level (conclusion: use of tripod)
2:
a very same shadow at the very same position in the center
(conclusion: difficult, but possible, because the rcu was not fixed o the spacesuite)

But what is by no means possible:
the very same shadow on a different background on the same film, within a short period of time.
Why:
because the sunlight is - of course - parallel, because the sun is far away. This - btw- would disallow this 'blur' around the shadow and the bright spot around the helmet.
Conclusion:
studio-setup and stupid photo-team.

Glom
2011-Mar-14, 08:53 AM
Huh?

I don't make out the horizon to be exactly level. In 5930, there is a noticeable slant in fact. Neither is the shadow in exactly the same position. In 5882 in particular it is way off. Your conclusion is debunked by the evidence not actually being what you said it was.

It is also debunked by being nonsensical. If it was all faked, why use a tripod to exactly point the camera? Why not have the actor just take the photo like he would if was on the Moon in order to ensure realism?

Nice pictures though.

thomheg
2011-Mar-14, 10:30 AM
Huh?

I don't make out the horizon to be exactly level. In 5930, there is a noticeable slant in fact. Neither is the shadow in exactly the same position. In 5882 in particular it is way off. Your conclusion is debunked by the evidence not actually being what you said it was.

It is also debunked by being nonsensical. If it was all faked, why use a tripod to exactly point the camera? Why not have the actor just take the photo like he would if was on the Moon in order to ensure realism?

Nice pictures though.

The horizon is strange, but not impossible.
But there is the other problem, that is the surface, the shadow is cast upon.
You don't expect the surface to move, if you swing the camera around, but to move the shadow on the picture and the shadow would stay on the same spot on the surface.

This is simple logic, that a toddler would understand.

Torsten
2011-Mar-14, 10:31 AM
What do they have in common:
1:
the horizon is exactly even, like drawn with a level (conclusion: use of tripod)


No it is not.


2:
a very same shadow at the very same position in the center
(conclusion: difficult, but possible, because the rcu was not fixed o the spacesuite)

Those shadows are not the same. Your ability to discern detail is very poor, thomheg. It is unbelievably poor.


This - btw- would disallow this 'blur' around the shadow and the bright spot around the helmet.

Okay, explain, using some physics, sketches, or whatever tools you think are necessary to convey your knowledge on this topic, why you think this is true. You don't get to sputter off nonsense and expect us to buy it just 'cuz you say so.


Conclusion:
studio-setup and stupid photo-team.

You've just demonstrated that you can't see the difference between the shadows in each picture. You have failed at the sort of task I recall doing in grade school (you know, "find the differences between these pictures"), and yet you declare this is the product of a "stupid photo-team"? Be careful what you call stupid.

Grashtel
2011-Mar-14, 10:32 AM
Hi Bauties

look at these pictures
1:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS11-40-5882
2:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS11-40-5906
3:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS11-40-5930

What do they have in common:
1:
the horizon is exactly even, like drawn with a level (conclusion: use of tripod)
Or another fairly stable mount, like say the chest of an astronaut wearing a suit that is known for not being terribly flexible and tending to assume the same position when not being actively moved.

2:
a very same shadow at the very same position in the center
(conclusion: difficult, but possible, because the rcu was not fixed o the spacesuite)
Um, have you actually looked at the pictures you have linked to? If you do you will see that the shadows aren't actually that similar.

But what is by no means possible:
the very same shadow on a different background on the same film, within a short period of time.
Its the shadow of the astronaut, astronauts are known to be able to move around, therefore if the same astronaut takes pictures in different locations you will get similar shadows with different backgrounds.

Why:
because the sunlight is - of course - parallel, because the sun is far away. This - btw- would disallow this 'blur' around the shadow and the bright spot around the helmet.
The Sun is not a point source so areas at the edge of the shadow will see only part of the sun producing a fuzzy edge to the shadow. The bright spot is an example of dry Heiligenschein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heiligenschein) which is a phenomena that can be observed on Earth quite easily, a good place to observe it is a field that has been ploughed recently (best if you wait long enough for the earth to dry out) producing a very rough surface, its not as obvious as in the Apollo pictures because terrestrial materials generally lack the glass spherules that are common in the Lunar regolith.

Conclusion:
studio-setup and stupid photo-team.
Which as it is drawn from false evidence is also false.

Strange
2011-Mar-14, 10:33 AM
1:
the horizon is exactly even, like drawn with a level (conclusion: use of tripod)

a) The horizon is not level (or even straight) in any of the pictures, especially not the third.
b) Why would that require a tripod. It is no easier getting a level horizon with a tripod than handheld. Possibly trickier wearing thick gloves. It is simple to take a picture with a level horizon. Have you ever used a camera?


2:
a very same shadow at the very same position in the center

Not the very same shadow and not in the same position. Similar, of course, because it is the shadow of the photographer. Who has chosen to take the picture with the sun behind him and his shadow stretching out in front. Here's a clue: he could actually see his shadow and was able to compose the shot with that in the centre of the picture. How hard is that?


But what is by no means possible:
the very same shadow on a different background on the same film, within a short period of time.
Why:
because the sunlight is - of course - parallel, because the sun is far away.

I don't understand what that means; I see no logical connection between those statements. Why would the sun being far away mean shadows should apear (randomly?) different in every picture? Surely, the fact the sun is a long way away means the shadow would always be similar apart from differences due to the height of the sun (which, I think, can be seen in these pictures - for example #1 looks to me as if it was taken with the sun lower in the sky).


This - btw- would disallow this 'blur' around the shadow and the bright spot around the helmet.

Why do you think there is a bright area around the helmet? And why do you think that is incompatible with sunlight?

BTW the bright area being around the helmet tells you something about how the camera was being held (do you know what?) as does the shape of the shadow. This, neatly, provides the explanation for your "impossible" level horizon and centred shadow. Well, done: you have just demolished your own argument!


Conclusion:
studio-setup and stupid photo-team.

Conclusion: you are seeing what you want to see and bending facts to fit your "theory".

So, these guys are smart enough to fake a mission that fooled rival countries (e,g. Russia) as well as amateur astronomers and radio hams around the world, involved keeping 10s or 100s of thousands of people all round the world quiet for decades and yet allow "obviously fake" pictures to be posted on a web site? I don't think so.

Strange
2011-Mar-14, 10:35 AM
You don't expect the surface to move, if you swing the camera around, but to move the shadow on the picture and the shadow would stay on the same spot on the surface.

What makes you think the camera was "swung around"?

Torsten
2011-Mar-14, 10:37 AM
thomheg:

Why don't you read the captions for these images:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/images11.html


AS11-40-5882 110:31:47 Rightward from 5881, with very little overlap. Note the bright 'halo' around the shadow of Buzz's helmet, which is probably produced by a coincidence of maximum zero-phase backscatter with that part of Buzz's shadow. Markus Mehring notes that the horizon feature beyond Buzz's shadow is a portion of the rim of a cluster of overlapping craters west of the landing site, as indicated in a comparison between details from 5882 and 82a and pre-landing overhead AS11-37-5447. The horizon feature at the righthand edge of 5882 is another portion of the cluster rims.

Ufonaut99
2011-Mar-14, 10:49 AM
But what is by no means possible:
the very same shadow on a different background on the same film, within a short period of time.
Why:
because the sunlight is - of course - parallel, because the sun is far away. This - btw- would disallow this 'blur' around the shadow and the bright spot around the helmet.
Conclusion:
studio-setup and stupid photo-team.

Those shadows aren't identical. Take a look at the left arm in each - it's sticking out differently in each one.
The shadows are clearly similar - which is not surprising since the camera was being held in a similar way for each one. If I take a photo with my back to the sun, and holding the camera up to my face, I expect I would have exactly the same sort of shadow with my arms sticking out.

And how do I know that these Apollo photos were taken with the camera being held to the face (OK helmet) instead of mounted on the RCU? By the fact that there's that bright spot around the helmet. Look up Heiligenschein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heiligenschein) - you'll find it's a well documented optical effect. It's one of the nice things I found out about when I first started getting interested in Apollo and the hoax claims. You can even see it as you walk along in the morning when there's dew in the grass :) The Lunar surface doesn't have dew, of course - but it does have spherules (http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap100110.html) that do the same job.

The point is that the halo will form around wherever the viewpoint is. If the camera was mounted on the RCU, the halo would be around the astronaut's chest. Instead, we see the halo around the helmet - so that's where the camera was, and that's why the astronaut's stance is similar.

pzkpfw
2011-Mar-14, 10:55 AM
... This is simple logic, that a toddler would understand.

Unless you are trying to get banned, please stop this kind of comment. (I'd also ask that no one reply in kind.)

It's bad enough that you've made previous hoax claims which you've then abandoned when it was pointed out how silly and unresearched they were. You are lucky to be given this chance.

Swift
2011-Mar-14, 08:24 PM
thomheg,

After some discussion among the moderators, we have decided to reopen this thread. However, you must follow one of two choices:

Either, you must participate in this thread and comply with the rules for the CT forum (general rules - see rule 13 (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/32864-**-Rules-For-Posting-To-This-Board-**), Advice for CT advocates (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/86593-Advice-for-Conspiracy-Theory-Supporters)), including defending all your claims and answering all questions that are put to you.

Or you must ask for this thread to be closed (which will indicate you are retracting your claim) or otherwise formally retract your claim.

If you continue this discussion without defending your claims or otherwise following our rules, or try to start another thread with claims of a moon landing hoax without defending your claims here, you will be severely infracted. If you continue playing games, by starting threads with claims of a moon landing hoax, just to abandon it as soon as you are questioned, you will be infracted.

Garrison
2011-Mar-14, 09:11 PM
Huh?

I don't make out the horizon to be exactly level. In 5930, there is a noticeable slant in fact. Neither is the shadow in exactly the same position. In 5882 in particular it is way off. Your conclusion is debunked by the evidence not actually being what you said it was.


It's not exactly difficult to discern that either. I just downloaded the pictures, opened them in a paint program and drew a horizontal line at the horizon from one side to the other on each. As you say 5930 has distinct slant and while the others are fairly straight I wouldn't call them exactly even, especially given these are fairly low res online copies of the original images.
And of course with them open in the same program it was easy to flick back and forth between the images and see just how dissimilar the shadows actually are.

Question for Thomeg:

Just what analysis did you perform on the photos to come to your clearly wrong conclusions?

Jason Thompson
2011-Mar-14, 11:00 PM
1:
the horizon is exactly even, like drawn with a level (conclusion: use of tripod)

No it is not. Even if it was, so what? Apollo 11 deliberately landed in a flat, featureless plain, in order to give the best possible chance for a landing (i.e no large mountains or craters).

And why would a tripod be used to fake shots publicised as taken by a man with a cmaera mounted to the front of his speacsuit? Your conclusion is nonsensical.


2:
a very same shadow at the very same position in the center
(conclusion: difficult, but possible, because the rcu was not fixed o the spacesuite)

What is difficult about the shadow? If the astronuat is facing downsun when the picture is taken then his shadow will be in the middle of the picture. And why do you say the RCU was not fixed to the suit when it quite definitely was?


the very same shadow on a different background on the same film, within a short period of time.

What is the surface terrain like? How much difference do you expect to see as a result of moving around the LM over the course of the EVA? The ground was largely flat, but not completely so. Moving around would bring other areas into view while hiding others.



because the sunlight is - of course - parallel, because the sun is far away. This - btw- would disallow this 'blur' around the shadow

Have you not noticed that your own shadow here on Earth has a somewhat soft edge? This is a perfectly normal sight caused by the fact that the Sun is not a point source of light.


and the bright spot around the helmet.

Look up the term 'heiligenschein'. It is again a perfectly common optical effect when dealing with rough surfaces that preferentially reflect light back the way it came.


studio-setup and stupid photo-team.

So how is it that none of the world's experts in photography and optics have spotted this in decades, but you have managed to uncover it? What makes you so special?

Jason Thompson
2011-Mar-14, 11:02 PM
You don't expect the surface to move, if you swing the camera around, but to move the shadow on the picture and the shadow would stay on the same spot on the surface.

And what if you walk 100 feet to the side between taking pictures, so you are on a different point on the surface?

Jason Thompson
2011-Mar-14, 11:04 PM
You don't expect the surface to move, if you swing the camera around, but to move the shadow on the picture and the shadow would stay on the same spot on the surface.

And what if you walk 100 feet to the side between taking pictures, so you are on a different point on the surface? look at the sequence of pictures on the Apollo 11 film magazine exposed on the surface and see the multitude of images taken between those three you selected. The astronaut has quite obviously moved between taking those pictures, and some considerable way as well.

cjameshuff
2011-Mar-14, 11:26 PM
It's not exactly difficult to discern that either. I just downloaded the pictures, opened them in a paint program and drew a horizontal line at the horizon from one side to the other on each. As you say 5930 has distinct slant and while the others are fairly straight I wouldn't call them exactly even, especially given these are fairly low res online copies of the original images.

It's common to work with much higher resolutions in print and such, but I wouldn't really call 3900x3900 "low res". Did you miss the print versions?

Aside from that...thomheg, all your claims are either obviously wrong on cursory examination of the images, very unclearly stated (for example, why exactly wouldn't a disk spanning half a degree of arc in the sky cast soft shadows? Do you realize that the paths of light from the sun on the Earth and Moon are only approximately parallel? And what's wrong with the directions, exactly? The astronauts didn't just stand in one place to snap pictures...), or just plain ridiculous, like the assertion that a handful of particularly well-aligned photographs out of a pile of thousands taken is proof of a hoax.

thomheg
2011-Mar-15, 05:20 AM
thanks for reopening this thread.

Ok, what is odd about the pictures?

You see a shadow of the person, that took the photos. Usually you try to avoid to have your own shadow on a photo. To step around and take photos of the own shadow would be quite bizarre on the Earth.

But I fail to beleive, that these hard-boiled technichians and pilots walk about the moon, just to chase their own shadow.

You see, that shadow is right in the centre of the picture. To achieve this, the astronaut had to turn and point his camera carefully at the own shadow. Then make a little trip to another location and do the same.

How in the world you want to explain that?

To have a shadow in the centre of the picture, the sun needs to be exactly behind the person and the camera is pointing axactly away from the sun. Need a proof for that?

PetersCreek
2011-Mar-15, 05:33 AM
thomheg,

Go back and read Swift's warning again. If you are going to participate, you have some obligations to meet. Just making further assertions and statements of incredulity aren't going to cut it. You need to start answering the questions asked of you.

Grashtel
2011-Mar-15, 05:38 AM
thanks for reopening this thread.

Ok, what is odd about the pictures?

You see a shadow of the person, that took the photos. Usually you try to avoid to have your own shadow on a photo. To step around and take photos of the own shadow would be quite bizarre on the Earth.

But I fail to beleive, that these hard-boiled technichians and pilots walk about the moon, just to chase their own shadow.

You see, that shadow is right in the centre of the picture. To achieve this, the astronaut had to turn and point his camera carefully at the own shadow. Then make a little trip to another location and do the same. Hint: Part of their job was to document their surroundings, a considerably larger part than producing pretty pictures for publicity use.

How in the world you want to explain that?

To have a shadow in the centre of the picture, the sun needs to be exactly behind the person and the camera is pointing axactly away from the sun. Need a proof for that?
So basically your argument is that because its not how you would have done things Apollo is fake then?

If you actually do a little research into what was being done at the times the pictures were taken, for example looking on the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal Page (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/images11.html) related to them then you would know why it was done that way. Hint: A significant part of the mission was to document their surroundings rather than producing pretty pictures for publicity use.

Jason Thompson
2011-Mar-15, 06:25 AM
You see a shadow of the person, that took the photos. Usually you try to avoid to have your own shadow on a photo. To step around and take photos of the own shadow would be quite bizarre on the Earth.

They're not on Earth, they're on the moon. One of the main objectives of the photography was to document their surroundings. Completely. Including the light scattering/reflecting properties of the surface. That includes intentionally taking pictures up-sun and down-sun. They are not taking pictures of their shadows, they are taking pictures of the landscape that ahppen to have their shadows in them because they are intentionally aiming down-sun tot ake the picture.


But I fail to beleive, that these hard-boiled technichians and pilots walk about the moon, just to chase their own shadow.

In 125 images, three contain the shadow you find so suspect. Hardly a high percentage, is it?


How in the world you want to explain that?

So because you don't know why it was done you conclude it was faked? That's one hell of a leap of logic.

Ufonaut99
2011-Mar-15, 06:45 AM
You see a shadow of the person, that took the photos. Usually you try to avoid to have your own shadow on a photo. To step around and take photos of the own shadow would be quite bizarre on the Earth.

But I fail to beleive, that these hard-boiled technichians and pilots walk about the moon, just to chase their own shadow.

You see, that shadow is right in the centre of the picture. To achieve this, the astronaut had to turn and point his camera carefully at the own shadow. Then make a little trip to another location and do the same.

How in the world you want to explain that?

To have a shadow in the centre of the picture, the sun needs to be exactly behind the person and the camera is pointing axactly away from the sun. Need a proof for that?

You do realise that each of the three pictures you referenced are part of (three separate) 360-degree panoramas? It's a bit difficult to get such a sequence without having your shadow in one of the photos!

I suggest you look at the full magazines - here (http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/Ap11_Mag40.jpg)for instance, and accompanying text (http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/).

Glom
2011-Mar-15, 07:35 AM
thanks for reopening this thread.

Ok, what is odd about the pictures?

You see a shadow of the person, that took the photos. Usually you try to avoid to have your own shadow on a photo. To step around and take photos of the own shadow would be quite bizarre on the Earth.

But I fail to beleive, that these hard-boiled technichians and pilots walk about the moon, just to chase their own shadow.

You see, that shadow is right in the centre of the picture. To achieve this, the astronaut had to turn and point his camera carefully at the own shadow. Then make a little trip to another location and do the same.

How in the world you want to explain that?

To have a shadow in the centre of the picture, the sun needs to be exactly behind the person and the camera is pointing axactly away from the sun. Need a proof for that?

So can we take this post as an admission that your original point about identical and perfectly level horizons and identicals shadows was wrong?

You are now arguing from incredulity. You are attempting to question the authenticity of something as massive as the Apollo programme on the basis that you think they are taking photos of weird things. I take pictures of weird things all the time. Does a photo of a fasten seat belts sign make my trip to Oman fake?

djellison
2011-Mar-15, 02:24 PM
the horizon is exactly even, like drawn with a level (conclusion: use of tripod)


No they're not


a very same shadow at the very same position in the center

Not it's not.


Conclusion:
studio-setup and stupid photo-team.

You had decided the conclusion before you looked at the photos. That's not how logic works.

thomheg
2011-Mar-15, 05:06 PM
So can we take this post as an admission that your original point about identical and perfectly level horizons and identicals shadows was wrong?


This was NOT my point, but to answer your question anyhow: no, you can't.
I have some trouble with measurement, but some device called 'Schiebelehre' (in German) and measure the horizon on my monitor. Left side is 43.5 mm and right side is 42.8 mm. That is certainly not perfect leveled, but far more than what you would expect from the camera and how that is mounted.

My point is - was - this:
if you turn around your own axis and take a series of pictures to make a panorama, then there is at maximum one shadow of you in the centre of one picture. (I refuse to prove that, but don't think you would require that).
But we have three different pictures, where you have the own shadow in the centre.
I claim, this is not only unlikely, but impossible.
Unlikely, because the astronaut had to walk to another spot and aim the camera at his own shadow. Possible and difficult, but bizarre.
Impossible is, that these pictures show up in a series of panorama shots. To achieve this, the astronaut had to walk to another spot and return. And the direction seems different, hence the astronaut is back-lit by something else than the sun, because the sun cannot move that fast .


You are now arguing from incredulity. You are attempting to question the authenticity of something as massive as the Apollo programm on the basis that you think they are taking photos of weird things. I take pictures of weird things all the time. Does a photo of a fasten seat belts sign make my trip to Oman fake?

You see, it's not my business, whether or not there were American astronauts on the moon. Personally I think, they were, but had trouble with the Hasselblads or forgot the film. Or they had other things to do or the film was destroyed. All these things I don't know and don't claim to know.
All I say is, these photos are not authentic pictures from the moon. The rest of your questions you could ask NASA.

cjameshuff
2011-Mar-15, 05:06 PM
If I were making a panoramic series of photos on the moon or writing recommendations for doing so...I would in fact suggest getting at least one straight-on image of the lander or some other local landmark, and one of the photographer's shadow, simply to help the location of the site to be precisely determined later on. The lunar morning sun makes a rather good directional reference. Aside from that, I would want pictures of the surface from as many lighting angles as possible. So there are in fact good reasons to take such pictures, aside from it just being an interesting shot and it being somewhat uncertain that any given shot would turn out well.

thomheg, your argument for an Apollo hoax is possibly the weakest I've ever seen. A couple photos are particularly level, and the astronaut shot his shadow a couple times? Are you really at all serious about this?

thomheg
2011-Mar-15, 05:58 PM
They're not on Earth, they're on the moon. One of the main objectives of the photography was to document their surroundings. Completely. Including the light scattering/reflecting properties of the surface. That includes intentionally taking pictures up-sun and down-sun. They are not taking pictures of their shadows, they are taking pictures of the landscape that ahppen to have their shadows in them because they are intentionally aiming down-sun tot ake the picture.



I have to defend my claim. so let me try again:

Compare these photos:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS11-40-5961
and
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS11-40-5906

On the second you see the connection of the antenna to the lander and the shadow is almost vertical to it.
On the other photo, the antenna is behind the lander and the shadow is pointing almost in direction of the lander.

Here you see the shadow is parallel to the line lander->antenna.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS11-40-5949

So the direction of shadows isn't parallel, but had to be.
But more 'funny' is Apollo 17.
How do you explain this picture?
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS17-147-22568

You see the problem?
The astronaut has the sun behind his back, that's why you see his shadow on the photo.
But how could the shadow of this device on the picture point towards the left?

Two suns???

Swift
2011-Mar-15, 06:03 PM
You see, it's not my business, whether or not there were American astronauts on the moon. Personally I think, they were, but had trouble with the Hasselblads or forgot the film. Or they had other things to do or the film was destroyed. All these things I don't know and don't claim to know.
All I say is, these photos are not authentic pictures from the moon. The rest of your questions you could ask NASA.
thomheg

"you could ask NASA" is not an acceptable answer. You are making the claim, that the photos were faked. It is up to you answer the questions and find the information that supports that claim. You may answer "I don't know", but you can not ignore questions, you can not only select a few to answer, and you can not say they are not your responsibility to answer.

Strange
2011-Mar-15, 06:12 PM
So the direction of shadows isn't parallel, but had to be.

You're joking, surely?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/40766706@N03/3759214197/
http://ralphrenewaswrongmate.com/web_images/shadows61.jpg

NEOWatcher
2011-Mar-15, 06:13 PM
You see the problem?
No; because I don't know the zoom level of the lens, nor the slope of the terrain at each point. Both can change how parallel they look.


But how could the shadow of this device on the picture point towards the left?
Two suns???
There would be two shadows for each, not seperately "aimed" shadows.

Swift
2011-Mar-15, 06:28 PM
Personally I think, they were, but had trouble with the Hasselblads or forgot the film. Or they had other things to do or the film was destroyed.
They had trouble with the cameras or forgot the film for six different moon landings? Do you think, even if they had problems on the first landing, that they would keep doing the same thing for the rest of the missions? By the way, did you know the same cameras were also used on Apollo 8, 9, and 10 (reference (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11-hass.html))? Don't you think they would have trouble-shot problems back on those missions?

And yes, those are questions I would like you to answer.

PetersCreek
2011-Mar-15, 06:33 PM
That is certainly not perfect leveled, but far more than what you would expect from the camera and how that is mounted.

And what is your rationale for what you expect? Have you looked at the horizon in the hundreds of other photos and noticed that many are decidedly not level? The crew had a lot of practice with the camera setup, so many will be level or very nearly so while others will not be. As an experienced photographer, I don't see anything unusual about the appearance of horizons in the photographic record.


My point is - was - this:
if you turn around your own axis and take a series of pictures to make a panorama, then there is at maximum one shadow of you in the centre of one picture. (I refuse to prove that, but don't think you would require that).
But we have three different pictures, where you have the own shadow in the centre.
I claim, this is not only unlikely, but impossible.

Yes, the typical panorama will have a maximum of one image in which the photographer's shadow may be more or less centered. Which means that three panoramas will have a maximum of three images in which the photographer's shadow may be more or less centered. Do you claim that it's impossible to make a panoramic series of photographs at three separate locations?


Unlikely, because the astronaut had to walk to another spot and aim the camera at his own shadow. Possible and difficult, but bizarre.

Why would it be so difficult to take a photograph directly down-sun? In fact, it makes a very good reference point for a panoramic series.


Impossible is, that these pictures show up in a series of panorama shots. To achieve this, the astronaut had to walk to another spot and return. And the direction seems different, hence the astronaut is back-lit by something else than the sun, because the sun cannot move that fast .

Frankly, this doesn't make a lick of sense to me. An astronaut could take a down-sun photo of his own shadow from nearly anywhere at the landing site except, say, in the shadow of the LM.

thomheg
2011-Mar-15, 06:41 PM
thomheg

"you could ask NASA" is not an acceptable answer. You are making the claim, that the photos were faked. It is up to you answer the questions and find the information that supports that claim. You may answer "I don't know", but you can not ignore questions, you can not only select a few to answer, and you can not say they are not your responsibility to answer.

I cannot answer every question thinkable. I don't know, if the photos are faked and don't claim to do.
My claim is, these photos we are presented are not made on the moon.
What I have to present are hints, what seems not quite fitting.
Besides the shadows there are more problems to explain.

As quite experienced photographer I can somehow see, how a photo was made. Measurement would certainly possible, but is beyond my abilities. Real scientific research by trained specialists of optics or alike, equipped with appropriate devices would certainly find more evidence than me. So I can only show, where the critical points are.
E.g. most pictures seem to have lower resolution than what you would expect.
Some photos of Apollo 17 seems to be 'table-top' setup. This you could figure out over the depth field. Too difficult for me, sorry. But these astronauts look somehow very small, like toys.

BertL
2011-Mar-15, 07:10 PM
I cannot answer every question thinkable. I don't know, if the photos are faked and don't claim to do.
So you don't claim that the photos are fake...

My claim is, these photos we are presented are not made on the moon.
... but that they aren't real. Right.

Space Chimp
2011-Mar-15, 07:13 PM
E.g. most pictures seem to have lower resolution than what you would expect.
Some photos of Apollo 17 seems to be 'table-top' setup. This you could figure out over the depth field. Too difficult for me, sorry. But these astronauts look somehow very small, like toys.

So are you implying that the astronauts we see in these photos are posed action figures in some sort of sand box? They sure don't read that way to me. It doesn't explain what we're seeing in the motion footage either.

NEOWatcher
2011-Mar-15, 07:39 PM
My claim is, these photos we are presented are not made on the moon.
But; the problems you present can be problems when photographed on Earth too.


As quite experienced photographer...
I don't care if you have decades of experience, you don't have experience in photography in a bulky suit, with no atmosphere and the same equipment and an alien landscape.


Real scientific research by trained specialists of optics or alike, equipped with appropriate devices would certainly find more evidence than me. And after decades of scientific research by trained specialists, that evidence has not been found.

Swift
2011-Mar-15, 07:43 PM
E.g. most pictures seem to have lower resolution than what you would expect.
Do you know what film they were using and what resolution to expect from it? Do you realize you are looking at film prints that were transfered to digital, and may have lost resolution in transferring? Do you realize that the links in your first post are not even to the high resolution versions (there is a link to the HR version on that same webpage as your link)? Does the high resolution version still look "unexpected" to you?

Bobbar
2011-Mar-15, 07:46 PM
But more 'funny' is Apollo 17.
How do you explain this picture?
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS17-147-22568

You see the problem?
The astronaut has the sun behind his back, that's why you see his shadow on the photo.
But how could the shadow of this device on the picture point towards the left?

Two suns???

The device is the ALSEP Geophone #2 and it's shadow is pointing in exactly the right direction. I believe you are mistaking its cable for a shadow.

Look at this higher quality image:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-147-22568HR.jpg

Strange
2011-Mar-15, 07:50 PM
Besides the shadows there are more problems to explain.

Well, there is no problem with the shadows. So what other problems do you think there are?


As quite experienced photographer I can somehow see, how a photo was made.

I find that very hard to believe, based on what you have said so far.


Measurement would certainly possible, but is beyond my abilities.

There are people who are capable of this sort of analysis and, when they can be bothered, they can trivially debunk claims like yours.


Real scientific research by trained specialists of optics or alike, equipped with appropriate devices would certainly find more evidence than me.

So why hasn't anyone with the necessary skills done this? Do you think they have all been suppressed by NASA?


So I can only show, where the critical points are.

So far you have spectacularly failed at that.


E.g. most pictures seem to have lower resolution than what you would expect.

What resolution would you expect? And why?


Some photos of Apollo 17 seems to be 'table-top' setup.

What makes you think that?


This you could figure out over the depth field. Too difficult for me, sorry.

So you think it is probably wrong but you are unable to demonstrate it. And neither is anyone else. Not very convincing so far.


But these astronauts look somehow very small, like toys.

They "look like toys"? Is that the best you can do? What about the film footage? Stop-motion animation (http://www.wallaceandgromit.com/films/granddayout/) maybe?

So, in summary, your devastating argument to prove these pictures are faked is: "I think it looks a bit hinky"? Wow.

Swift
2011-Mar-15, 07:51 PM
<snips>
I cannot answer every question thinkable. I don't know, if the photos are faked and don't claim to do.
My claim is, these photos we are presented are not made on the moon.
What I have to present are hints, what seems not quite fitting.

...

Measurement would certainly possible, but is beyond my abilities. Real scientific research by trained specialists of optics or alike, equipped with appropriate devices would certainly find more evidence than me. So I can only show, where the critical points are.

thomheg,

I am asking this as a member, not a moderator: so exactly what do you want out of this thread? You say you are not an expert, that you don't have measurements, and you can't make them, you have no evidence, you just have "hints". Yet there are experts on this board who have looked at these photos for decades and don't see any hints that they are "fake" (or were taken on the Earth). They tell you the photos are exactly what they are presented to be, but you don't believe it.

To do what you claim, to fake (and I would call "taken on Earth" fake) all the photos for all six missions would have required hundreds, if not thousands of people, none of whom have talked in 40+ years. Yet the fact that you think a few photos look funny, or are not done like you would have done them, is supposed to be alarming, and convince us the photos were faked.

What would it take to convince you the photos are as NASA says they are?

What are you possibly going to tell the rest of us that is going to convince us that they are not?

Strange
2011-Mar-15, 07:53 PM
Look at this higher quality image:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-147-22568HR.jpg

Oooh, those hills at the back look totally unconvincing; too round. :)

Bobbar
2011-Mar-15, 08:00 PM
Oooh, those hills at the back look totally unconvincing; too round. :)

Perhaps. They definitely look unconvincing for being 8 and 14 miles away! But, then again, we've spent our whole lives on the Earth and our intuitions about the Moon are likely to be somewhat off. :cool:

Torsten
2011-Mar-15, 08:02 PM
The device is the ALSEP Geophone #2 and it's shadow is pointing in exactly the right direction. I believe you are mistaking its cable for a shadow.

Look at this higher quality image:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-147-22568HR.jpg

I was just about to post the same thing.

So, questions for thomheg:

1. Does the image that Bobbar posted change your mind about the directions of shadows for this scene?
2. Does the same image address your concern about the resolution of the images?


As quite experienced photographer I can somehow see, how a photo was made. Measurement would certainly possible, but is beyond my abilities. Real scientific research by trained specialists of optics or alike, equipped with appropriate devices would certainly find more evidence than me. So I can only show, where the critical points are.

People that think they've found problems with the Apollo images invariably demonstrate that they don't know much about photography or the Apollo program.

Glom
2011-Mar-15, 08:06 PM
That is certainly not perfect leveled,

That's very different from what you said in the OP. You said the horizons were "exactly even".


but far more than what you would expect from the camera and how that is mounted.

It's not possible to hold a camera level? You have no basis for that statement.


My point is - was - this:
if you turn around your own axis and take a series of pictures to make a panorama, then there is at maximum one shadow of you in the centre of one picture. (I refuse to prove that, but don't think you would require that).
But we have three different pictures, where you have the own shadow in the centre.
I claim, this is not only unlikely, but impossible.
Unlikely, because the astronaut had to walk to another spot and aim the camera at his own shadow. Possible and difficult, but bizarre.
Impossible is, that these pictures show up in a series of panorama shots. To achieve this, the astronaut had to walk to another spot and return. And the direction seems different, hence the astronaut is back-lit by something else than the sun, because the sun cannot move that fast .

What are you talking about? Look at the whole roll. These three photos are from three entirely different pans taken in three different locations.

Van Rijn
2011-Mar-15, 09:34 PM
That is certainly not perfect leveled, but far more than what you would expect from the camera and how that is mounted.


Why is it more than you would expect, given the mounting? From previous discussion in a recent thread you should remember that the camera slid onto rails on the suit's RCU. I'd expect a shot to be reasonably level given that the astronauts were usually standing up, rarely leaning very far to one side or another.

Could you give some general idea of what research you're doing before making these claims? I'm not getting the impression you're doing any research, or making much effort to follow the discussion.

Garrison
2011-Mar-15, 09:46 PM
This was NOT my point, but to answer your question anyhow: no, you can't.
I have some trouble with measurement, but some device called 'Schiebelehre' (in German) and measure the horizon on my monitor. Left side is 43.5 mm and right side is 42.8 mm. That is certainly not perfect leveled, but far more than what you would expect from the camera and how that is mounted.

This is what you said originally(my bold):


1:
the horizon is exactly even, like drawn with a level

Quite unequivocal. Are you prepared to defend that contention? If not you have no choice but to withdraw it.

Garrison
2011-Mar-15, 09:50 PM
So I can only show, where the critical points are.
E.g. most pictures seem to have lower resolution than what you would expect.

Are you basing this on the images you downloaded from the net or have you actually looked at the original prints/negatives?

LotusExcelle
2011-Mar-15, 10:07 PM
My claim is, these photos we are presented are not made on the moon.
What I have to present are hints, what seems not quite fitting.
Besides the shadows there are more problems to explain.

As quite experienced photographer I can somehow see, how a photo was made. Measurement would certainly possible, but is beyond my abilities. Real scientific research by trained specialists of optics or alike, equipped with appropriate devices would certainly find more evidence than me. So I can only show, where the critical points are.
E.g. most pictures seem to have lower resolution than what you would expect.
Some photos of Apollo 17 seems to be 'table-top' setup. This you could figure out over the depth field. Too difficult for me, sorry. But these astronauts look somehow very small, like toys.

Here you betray your inexperience with photography, your lack of research, as well as your half-formed theory/claim. Your inexperience with photography is especially evident. Others have posted several examples of photos that lay waste to your shadow issue claims. Have you viewed those photos? Essentially there are no problems with the shadows in the Apollo photos. None.

Another thing I would like to point out is that extensive, exhaustive, mind bogglingly detailed research has been done on the source material. Read: the original film. NOT web-resolution JPEGs. If resolution is a concern - find scans at higher resolution. Reasonably high res shots should be easy to find.

Your last sentence once again betrays your lack of photographic experience. Do you know how to calculate depth of field? Do you know what lens was mounted, what the f-stop was at, film speed? This information is available.

captain swoop
2011-Mar-15, 11:43 PM
If the pictures are carefuly staged and posed on earth, why would they include their shadows if you think that isn't what a good photographer would do?
Would they have not inclued them if they were actualy on the moon?

thomheg
2011-Mar-16, 05:40 AM
So are you implying that the astronauts we see in these photos are posed action figures in some sort of sand box? They sure don't read that way to me.
Sorry, but it does look like that to me:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS17-143-21836
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS17-143-21941
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS17-142-21714
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS17-142-21812
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS17-142-21813
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS17-141-21599
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS17-140-21497
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS17-141-21610
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS17-140-21495
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS17-143-21941

djellison
2011-Mar-16, 05:42 AM
Sorry, but it does look like that to me:

Explain how, exactly. And moreover, what you believe they 'should' look like were they to be 'real'.

Van Rijn
2011-Mar-16, 05:49 AM
thomheg, I have waiting questions (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/113606-Impossible-Nasa-shots?p=1863755#post1863755), not that I am the first or only one. Are you even reading them?

PetersCreek
2011-Mar-16, 05:51 AM
thomheg,

I've told you that just saying so won't cut. It's time to present real evidence. It's time to answer questions. No more delays.

Strange
2011-Mar-16, 08:34 AM
Sorry, but it does look like that to me:

Well, it does look like that to me. So, given the overwhelming evidence that these pictures were obviously taken on the moon, you need something a bit better than "I don't think so". You know, like objective evidence.

thomheg
2011-Mar-16, 08:55 AM
Explain how, exactly. And moreover, what you believe they 'should' look like were they to be 'real'.
See this thing here:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS17-146-22371
and here:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS17-142-21714

There is this kind of tripod.
On one picture it is hardly reaching the knee and on the next pucture you see - well - what?

There are still the footprints and an 'action hero'.

thomheg
2011-Mar-16, 09:04 AM
Why is it more than you would expect, given the mounting? From previous discussion in a recent thread you should remember that the camera slid onto rails on the suit's RCU. I'd expect a shot to be reasonably level given that the astronauts were usually standing up, rarely leaning very far to one side or another.

Could you give some general idea of what research you're doing before making these claims? I'm not getting the impression you're doing any research, or making much effort to follow the discussion.
Well, that's correct.
Sorry, but as I have written, my interests in conspiracy theories are limited, as are my means and knowledge.
So:, I cannot guarantee for any grain of truth in my statements and don't want to. You have to see yourself. This is the best way. But I could give some hints, where you should look, because I'm quite an experienced photographer.

Strange
2011-Mar-16, 09:07 AM
On one picture it is hardly reaching the knee and on the next pucture you see - well - what?

You might want to look up "perspective" in a dictionary. It is a term frequently use in "photography".

BTW. This claim is so bizarre, it took me about 10 minutes to work out what you were complaining about. Are you just going to keep posting random images that you don't understand?

Strange
2011-Mar-16, 09:10 AM
Sorry, but as I have written, my interests in conspiracy theories are limited, as are my means and knowledge.

So why do you keep posting your erroneous ideas?


So:, I cannot guarantee for any grain of truth in my statements and don't want to.

Just as well or I would be asking for my money back.


You have to see yourself. This is the best way.

Yep. I have seen for myself that there are no problems with the images you post.


because I'm quite an experienced photographer.

And yet you don't know about perspective or any other photographic effects.

captain swoop
2011-Mar-16, 09:17 AM
OK Enough.
Thomheg. Once again you offer no evidence to support your claims and say you have no interest.
This thread is closed. If you post any more threads like this you will be severely Infracted.