PDA

View Full Version : Laws of physics- moon hoax quandries



scottywan
2004-Jan-03, 02:22 AM
I need some help understanding the whole moon-hoax issue. I was taught we went, saw the news stories in school, etc, but after seeing the fox aired show, I'm honestly unsure where I stand. You have to admit- the points they make, (that is, anti-moon folk), at least 50% of the points they make are very convincing, and are very logical arguements. I didn't graduate from a college, don't have any special proofs of inteligence/I.Q., but the truth is that I'm a very logical, intelligent minded individual, and I know and understand (in laymen's terms, not scientific terms,) the Laws of Physics. What about the shadows of different objects in the lunar photos? This was one of the problems mentioned on that show, and it's a valid point. I've read articles where people claimed that the moon's gravity is less, and therefore the shadows don't "act" like shadows do on Earth. Obviously rediculous if you know anything about gravity and light. I've also read articles claiming that the issue has to do with the moon's lack of atmosphere. Neither gravity nor atmoshere have anything to do with how and where a shadow is cast, lighting is the only source that can effect shadow. So, how do some of you explain the shadow problems on those 30 year old photos? And what about the same views of the same mountain with different foregrounds??

Musashi
2004-Jan-03, 02:32 AM
Start here: www.clavius.org

My questions and comments to you:

What shadow problems? Specifically please.

Furthermore, I do not have to admit that their points were convincing or logical, mostly because they are neither. People that have told you that shadows behave differently in differnt gravity are wrong. The 'problems' with the shadows are not really problems and have nothing to do with gravity. Some of the light issues do deal with the lack of atmosphere, but most of the so called problems are misunderstandings by people, some of whom shoudl know better.

Grashtel
2004-Jan-03, 02:38 AM
Read http://www.clavius.org/ (BTW Musashi the link you posted got mangled) and http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html if there is anyhting that isn't addressed to your satisfaction come back here and ask about it.

NASA Fan
2004-Jan-03, 02:38 AM
Or check here

www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#parallel

Yeswedid
2004-Jan-03, 02:51 AM
So, how do some of you explain the shadow problems on those 30 year old photos? And what about the same views of the same mountain with different foregrounds??

You can find some of the best explanations here:

http://iangoddard.net/moon01.htm

and ....

http://www.clavius.org/trrnshdow.html

and .....

http://www.mondlandung.pcdl.de/schatten/index_schatten.htm (in German, but still the pics are very good)

Below - created on Earth !

http://www.mondlandung.pcdl.de/schatten/bilder/berg.jpg

Check out, where the shadows of the two men - standing next to each other - are pointing ! :D
And compare the direction of the shadow of the big rock to the left vs. the direction of the shadow of the smaller rock to right !

Also it has a lot to do with perspective (itīs the same two pencils and just one light source: The Sun):

http://www.mondlandung.pcdl.de/schatten/bilder/bleistifte2.jpg

http://www.mondlandung.pcdl.de/schatten/bilder/bleistifte1.jpg

http://www.mondlandung.pcdl.de/schatten/bilder/bleistifte3.jpg

scottywan
2004-Jan-03, 03:03 AM
At www.moonhoax.com (Ibelieve that's the site) there are photos that the site manager shows and one of the photos shows some moon terrain, there are some hills in the background, and in the foreground there are some rocks, the lower left corner of the photo shows the closest cluster of rocks, then there are more just right of the center of the photo, and in the upper right of the photo is another small group of rocks. (the furthest group.) The first two groups I mentioned were just dandy. The shadows were aimed in a certain way, indicating a specific light source, coming from a specific location. But the furthest cluster ha a shadow going off in a totally different direction, and the reason it's a problem, is that the light source for the first two groups would cause a shaddow identicle to the other two groups, unless that source was very powerful, and very close to the rocks, and THEN the shadows would be going in different directions. But this is not the case, the source of light has to be the sun or it's reflection of the earth, and a light source from that far away would cause the shadows to be identicle, but they are not. So the conspirists beleive that the photos were changed, grafted together from different shots, to make one scene of moon terrain look like a different scene, what do you think?

Yeswedid
2004-Jan-03, 03:19 AM
But this is not the case, the source of light has to be the sun or it's reflection of the earth, and a light source from that far away would cause the shadows to be identicle, but they are not. So the conspirists beleive that the photos were changed, grafted together from different shots, to make one scene of moon terrain look like a different scene, what do you think?

A much more likely reason for the shadows going in different directions is that one set of shadows are falling on level ground, whereas the other set of shadows are falling "down hill" or "up hill". See my above post or:

http://www.clavius.org/img/terrain-diverge-1.jpg

http://www.clavius.org/img/tree-hill-3.jpg

Also remember that on the rather featureless lunar surface, it may not be that easy to determine exactly whatīs up-hill, down-hill or level - especially when viewed from a distance.

scottywan
2004-Jan-03, 03:31 AM
I understand what you're getting at- but the photo in question, (which I wish I could show as you've shown all yours,) seems flat to me, what difference does it make whether it's lunar or Earth, as to whether or not it's easy or difficult to distinguish terrain??? I suppose you think B-s 2 is better that x-box too?

johnwitts
2004-Jan-03, 03:38 AM
Because he started a new thread...


I see the shadow photos you sent, thanks for the insights, but here are the problems:
1) first shot is on a HUMP OF LAND- not flat terrain. if the terrain is not flat, the shadows will not be identicle.
2) The shots of pencils/sticks- they are too close together, and they are not equal in Trajectory, one leans one direction, the other leans another direction, they produce different shadows.

The problem with the moon shot is that the groups of rocks producing shadow are all on an even flat terrain, the ground is leve, and in addition the groups of rocks are VERY similar in size, and they are far apart, their shadows should be the same, ir at least indistinguishable to us that there is a differrence.
_________________
scottywan

You assume the surface is flat. You assume that the rocks are all similar shapes. Those are two big assumptions based on no evidence. In fact, the evidence supports the fact that the terrain is anything but flat, and that the rocks are many different shapes and sizes. I've messed about taking photos in a big sandpit. If I made lots of hills and troughs, the photos all looked smooth and flat until I cast a shadow of a straight stick across the undulations. The terrain then looks really bumpy. Because the terrain is so bland and featureless on the Moon, it's difficult to tell how bumpy the terrain is until we see the shadows going all over the place.

Ever done off road driving? If you drive over terrain that is rough and covered in grass, and if the Sun is high in the sky, there are no shadows to supply relief to the scene. You can end up riding your bike down into some pretty big bowls in the grass because they appear without you noticing them... I've learnt this recently from bitter experience. Plastic fairings are expensive...

Yeswedid
2004-Jan-03, 03:40 AM
I understand what you're getting at- but the photo in question, (which I wish I could show as you've shown all yours,) seems flat to me, what difference does it make whether it's lunar or Earth, as to whether or not it's easy or difficult to distinguish terrain??? I suppose you think B-s 2 is better that x-box too?

Even though it may seem flat, it may not be alltogether flat. Its a 2D pic trying to show us a 3D world and there arenīt as many features on the lunar surface as here on Earth. Those features are helping us to determine the 3rd dimension: Depth.

johnwitts
2004-Jan-03, 03:43 AM
Try this image, chosen at random after a very short search...

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a16/20121870.jpg

The terrain is hardly flat and level...

johnwitts
2004-Jan-03, 03:50 AM
And just to stuff up everyone's browser...

No, I think I'll just post a link. :)

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a16/a16pan1431346.jpg

scottywan
2004-Jan-03, 03:52 AM
I can see your point. I suppose I just have difficulty accepting that I can't tell the difference in the moon's case of whether or not this terrain or that terrain is flat or not. I know that the photo in question is 2-d, taking a shot of a 3-d world, like "yes we did" said, it just seems like I should be able to tell the difference, even from a 2-d shot, because of the lack of anything but dust and rock. But what about the issue of the mountain in the background of several photos, with different foregrounds? These foreground are definately not related because of 1)didtance from the alleged mountain, and 2) objects in the foreground that ARE in some shots, and are not in others, and according to that site I mentioned, each phot has an astronaut's explanation of where on the moon they were when that shot was taken, and the explanations don't jive with the shots. Like I said, I'm not on your side or their side at the moment, I just need to weigh all the evidence I have, I can only dismiss something I can disprove, right now I'm in the study phase.

scottywan
2004-Jan-03, 03:56 AM
That photo can't be compared to the one I was describing, since that phot has very obvious hills and contours in the terrain.

"and we'll be waiting, dear friend." -Prof. Charles Xavier

johnwitts
2004-Jan-03, 03:58 AM
Try this... Go to Switzerland and park about 20 miles from a big Alp. Take a photo of the foreground with the mountains in the distance. Then, drive a couple of miles in any direction. Take another photo of your completely different foreground with the same mountains in the distance. I guarantee that you will have two photos with different foregrounds but with identical backgrounds. I've done this. It works.

Yeswedid
2004-Jan-03, 04:01 AM
Phil, "The Bad Astronomer", explains it better than I can:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#backgrounds

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#backgrounds2

scottywan
2004-Jan-03, 04:10 AM
Are you suggesting that the "mountain" in those lunar shots is
1) anywhere near the size of any of the mountains in the alps?

2) 20 miles away from the point at which the camera took the shot?

Of course you'll get the same background and different foregrounds in a shot if the backgraound is 20 miles away, You could probably travel 4-6 miles before the mountains in the distance start changing in perspective to your position, but the shots I saw of that moon' mountain didn't look to me to be 20 miles away, MAYBE 1 mile, but I seriously doubt it was that far. And if that's the case, (IF), then you couldn't just go two or three miles away to get a different foreground, and still have that matching background. You guys did win me over in the shadows department so far though. But I'm going to watch S.W.A.T. now. (widescreen special edition birthday present!!) Tootaloo!

ps- if you want to try converting me more, my e-mail is:
scottywan@earthlink.net

Yeswedid
2004-Jan-03, 04:32 AM
but the shots I saw of that moon' mountain didn't look to me to be 20 miles away, MAYBE 1 mile, but I seriously doubt it was that far.

But how do you KNOW ? Itīs very, very difficult to determine distances on the Moon, because there arenīt any trees (unless we ask George Adamski ! :lol: :lol: ) or telephone poles or houses to help us with DEPTH. Here on Earth, you can see a one story building in the distance and estimate the distance to it, because you know how big the building is. You canīt do that on the Moon: No house, no trees.

And if that's the case, (IF), then you couldn't just go two or three miles away to get a different foreground, and still have that matching background. You guys did win me over in the shadows department so far though.

What if the lander and any other (viewable) features are within, say, 200 yeards from the photographer - and the next 10, 15, 20 miles to the foot of the mountains (remember that the Moon is basically a big pile of nothing :D :D ), the few features are "blurred" out in the strong light from the Sun, then you wouldnīt have to move very much to one side or the other in order to - for instance - miss the lander completely. Remember that the camera only covers a fairly tiny angle.

But I'm going to watch S.W.A.T. now. (widescreen special edition birthday present!!) Tootaloo!

Let me wish you a Happy Birthday on behalf of the BABB ! Come back, if you have any further questions. We are only happy to help you. :D :D

frenat
2004-Jan-03, 04:37 AM
Another thing you should remember is if there is more than one light source than some objects should have more than one shadow. There are no examples of this at all.

scottywan
2004-Jan-03, 06:09 AM
As far as light sources and shadows go- one light source would cause one shadow per object, each shadow a distortion of the shape it is casted by. Also, if two objects (reguardless of their shape) are in fairly close proximity to the light source, their shadows whatever their form, will be stretching toward different directions. The variations of these shadow's directions depend upon terrain, the proximity of the objects to each other, and the distance of the light source. If there are two or more sources of light, then there will be that many shadows per object, and the brighter the source, the darker and more noticeable the shadow. So, we would see more than one shadow per object if there were more than one light source, unless :
1) the second source were very dim in comparison to the first, and
2) we were viewing a 2-d photo

Either of these could hide the potential second shadow per object. But, refering to the explanation I gave earlier of the shot with the three groups of rocks, and the even terrain, (at least it sure as hell looks even,) in that particular shot, there were shadows from two of the rock groups, (By the way these rock groups are small rocks- each of these groups would fill an area of about 1.5sq ft.) the shadows from the first two groups were stretching out in one direction, and the third groups shadow was heading in a different direction. This problem has nada to do with an additional light source, since we would also be seeing a second shadow from each rock group. The problem is that there is only one shadow per group, and two groups shadows point to a different direction than the third groups shadow. I believe the light source is the sun itself, because of the length of the shadows, it seems to me that the sun is shining at an angle about equal to 2hrs before sunset . The closer the sun is to the horizon, the more distorted the shadows become, and the further they stretch outward. But like "Yes we did" said, I'm only going on one 2-d photo from one angle, and I'd need two or three other shots of that exact area to really be able to tell what's going on accurately. (I suppose that last statement cancelled out all the previous proof I so valiantly put together!!)

Peter B
2004-Jan-03, 02:47 PM
As far as light sources and shadows go- one light source would cause one shadow per object, each shadow a distortion of the shape it is casted by. Also, if two objects (reguardless of their shape) are in fairly close proximity to the light source, their shadows whatever their form, will be stretching toward different directions. The variations of these shadow's directions depend upon terrain, the proximity of the objects to each other, and the distance of the light source. If there are two or more sources of light, then there will be that many shadows per object, and the brighter the source, the darker and more noticeable the shadow. So, we would see more than one shadow per object if there were more than one light source, unless :
1) the second source were very dim in comparison to the first, and
2) we were viewing a 2-d photo

Either of these could hide the potential second shadow per object. But, refering to the explanation I gave earlier of the shot with the three groups of rocks, and the even terrain, (at least it sure as hell looks even,) in that particular shot, there were shadows from two of the rock groups, (By the way these rock groups are small rocks- each of these groups would fill an area of about 1.5sq ft.) the shadows from the first two groups were stretching out in one direction, and the third groups shadow was heading in a different direction. This problem has nada to do with an additional light source, since we would also be seeing a second shadow from each rock group. The problem is that there is only one shadow per group, and two groups shadows point to a different direction than the third groups shadow. I believe the light source is the sun itself, because of the length of the shadows, it seems to me that the sun is shining at an angle about equal to 2hrs before sunset . The closer the sun is to the horizon, the more distorted the shadows become, and the further they stretch outward. But like "Yes we did" said, I'm only going on one 2-d photo from one angle, and I'd need two or three other shots of that exact area to really be able to tell what's going on accurately. (I suppose that last statement cancelled out all the previous proof I so valiantly put together!!)

Scottywan

I think a lot of people on the BABB would appreciate your willingness to (a) put your thought processes out here in writing, and (b) change your mind if the evidence doesn't stack up. I certainly do.

I just wanted to make a comment on your statement above that "...we would see more than one shadow per object if there were more than one light source, unless: 1) the second source were very dim in comparison to the first, and 2) we were viewing a 2-d photo"

If there were two light sources, but one of them was faint enough to not cast a shadow, then it can't really be doing much lighting, can it? :)

Secondly, I don't see that multiple shadows would disappear in a photo. They certainly don't disappear when you watch television programs recorded under lights. The show I remember mostly for this (probably because this is where I noticed it first) was Lost in Space. [Doctor Smith] "Oh the pain..." [/Doctor Smith]

Can I recommend a visit to the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal web-site, where you can look at stacks of Apollo photos.

JayUtah
2004-Jan-03, 05:46 PM
I need some help understanding the whole moon-hoax issue.

I got in late on this. Sorry if I echo some of the discussion that's already been done. I'm the author of Clavius.org. I'm an engineer. I'm also a photographer and a lighting technician for theater (both of those in my spare time). I'm also a fairly good photo interpreter (you learn a little bit of that as an engineer) and a fairly good logician (I have extensive training in computer science as well).

You have to admit- the points they make, (that is, anti-moon folk), at least 50% of the points they make are very convincing

Convincing, yes. Correct, no. They give you a simplistic declaration of how light and shadow "should" behave, and then they declare the Apollo photos fraudulent because they don't fit the simplistic case. The problem is with the simplistic case, not with the photos. We can show real-world photographs that also break the simplistic explanations.

...and are very logical arguements.

Actually they're terrible arguments from a logical standpoint. From the empirical point of view, they present very selective evidence. They show the two or three photos that tend to favor their explanation, but they don't show you the several hundred photographs that their explanation doesn't fit. They know you won't look them up for yourself.

The Fox program, like all conspiracy theories, is full of logical fallacies and logical errors. The shadow argument is the fallacy of the affirmed consequent. They note that having different lights would produce odd shadows. They see odd shadows and so they (incorrectly) reason backwards and say that there "must" have been different lights. That's very, very bad logic.

What about the shadows of different objects in the lunar photos?

They're just fine. The notion that parallel light from the sun "must" result in shadows that appear parallel under all conditions, is very wrong. I can't begin to explain to you how wrong that is. They simply do not understand the geometry of what's going on at all. And the sad part about it is that this is something we can all easily see for ourselves. People just buy into it without thinking about it.

And what about the same views of the same mountain with different foregrounds??

Parallax, also an easy thing to observe and reproduce in photos.

JayUtah
2004-Jan-03, 05:51 PM
[b]The shadows were aimed in a certain way, indicating a specific light source, coming from a specific location. But the furthest cluster ha a shadow going off in a totally different direction...[b]

You mean like this?

http://www.clavius.org/shad15.html

If you study the behavior of shadows as I have, you find that on flat terrain, shadows tend to appear to fall more horizontally (i.e., across the frame left-to-right instead of toward-and-away) as the distance from the photographer increases.

There is a mathematical reason for this, having to do with projective geometry. Dimensions in the transverse direction are affected only by distance. Dimensions in the axial direction are affected not only by distance, but but a change in aspect. Don't worry if that doesn't make sense to you. Just figure out why circular manhole covers look like ellipses when seen from a distance and you'll have your answer in practical terms.

JayUtah
2004-Jan-03, 06:05 PM
but the photo in question ... seems flat to me

A common enough error. I'm having some stereograms made of some Apollo photos that were taken as stereo pairs. They show far more contour in the lunar terrain than is generally seen by the casual obsever.

I see this effect too in my own photography. I live near the desert in Utah, and when I go out and take pictures of rolling desert terrain, I get flat, featureless photographs. The same thing happened to me in Egypt: nothing but flat, uninteresting photos.

Binocular vision is important for distinguishing terrain. Not only do you have retinal disparity (two eyes seeing from a slightly different viewpoint) you also have parallax that derives from the very slight movements of your head. Even just turning your head slightly provides enough parallax for one eye to determine depth in the average scene. And since we move our heads all the time, we get constant depth information.

In photography, most of the information that our eyes use to determine depth is not available. We then have to rely on lighting and object cues to give us depth. On a uniform textured surface such as the moon (or deserts on earth) you simply can't discern contour by looking for contour lines.

Look at this photo:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/research/apollo/images/AS16/113/18359.jpg

The LM is half-hidden. There's an intervening rise that is totally invisible without some familiar cue to reveal it to you.

what difference does it make whether it's lunar or Earth, as to whether or not it's easy or difficult to distinguish terrain?

Because Earth terrain has familiar cues: vegetation, artificial constructs, varied surface texture. These things help us determine contour on Earth. They are completely absent on the moon.

Conspiracy theorists rely on the simplistic theory that if it looks flat, it must be flat. Unfortunately when you're talking about a standard against which authenticity is to be measured, "looks flat" isn't good enough.

I'll let you know when the stereograms are ready. The ones I've seen so far are astonishing. There is much more variability in the lunar terrain than even I guessed, and I'm an expert in Apollo photography.

JayUtah
2004-Jan-03, 06:12 PM
it just seems like I should be able to tell the difference, even from a 2-d shot, because of the lack of anything but dust and rock.

Again, this just proves you are a normal person. Most of us believe that we would be very good at discerning contour, even if our best cues were removed. But in fact we aren't. And the lack of anything except dust and rock is precisely the reason. If we had some trees or shrubs or grass or something like that -- things we have all the time on earth, whether we realize it consciously or not -- then we'd be better and picking out contour.

The conspiracy theorists know this. They know that proving the ground is contoured, as opposed to flat, is an uphill battle. Pun intended. That's why they simply declare the ground to be flat and go from there. They don't have to prove it to you because it's "obvious" to you. You don't question it, even when you should.

each phot has an astronaut's explanation of where on the moon they were when that shot was taken, and the explanations don't jive with the shots.

Well, not really. It's not like anyone kept detailed records of each photo. But based on context, and upon corroborating records like 16mm film and video downlinks, we can be pretty sure were most of the photos were taken. But since the captions are indeed our post-reconstruction of the events, they are not guaranteed to be correct. They generally are, but if there arises some discrepancy we need not immediately cry fraud.

JayUtah
2004-Jan-03, 06:19 PM
You could probably travel 4-6 miles before the mountains in the distance start changing in perspective to your position...

Well, I live in the Salt Lake Valley -- very similar to the Taurus-Littrow Valley on the moon where Apollo 17 landed, and from which most of the "wrong background" pictures are taken. You only need to move a couple of miles before you can see parallax-induced changes of aspect. The effect is much more pronounced than you realize consciously.

I shot some photos just outside my office against a mountain background about 3 miles away. I used a utility line marker as the "foreground" object. When I went back inside I found that I had to go back and reshoot the shots because even though I had stepped only three or four steps in the transverse direction, there wasn't enough common mountain skyline in the photos to prove that they matched. I took the second set of photos from about 20 feet away from the marker, and took only one step to the side in order to generate the parallax.

but the shots I saw of that moon' mountain didn't look to me to be 20 miles away, MAYBE 1 mile, but I seriously doubt it was that far.

Again, distances are deceiving on the moon. Most of those mountains you're looking at in lunar photography are 5-10 miles away from the astronauts.

Moon mountains are funny-shaped compared to Earth mountains. My mountains are jagged and rocky when they're tall, and low and rounded when they're not. The rounded appearance of lunar mountains lead many to believe they're just nearby hills. But those mountains are thousands of feet tall.

Plus, the lack of intervening haze (which we have on Earth even on a clear day) makes judging distances deceiving on the moon. Everything appears crystal clear, even though it's miles away.

JayUtah
2004-Jan-03, 06:46 PM
Consider the following two photographs:

http://www.clavius.org/img/orig-3-l.jpg
http://www.clavius.org/img/orig-3-r.jpg

They were taken one step apart. The utility marker is the "foreground". (The white building in the background is where I work, in case it matters.) The mountains are a few miles away.

Now consider two methods of "registering" the photographs:

http://www.clavius.org/img/parallax-3-right.jpg
http://www.clavius.org/img/parallax-3-wrong.jpg

Whether it's "right" or "wrong" depends on which feature of the photo you want to consider a priori correct and therefore which other feature is alleged to be anomalous.

In the first photo the utility pole is considered the "authentic" feature. Note that the backgrounds don't match. The fence posts get farther apart with distance, and the mountain ridgeline in the background is completely disparate. This is the kind of superimposition that a conspiracy theorist would show you if he were trying to argue that the moon "set" was a single set where they just changed the "backdrop" in order to make it appear different.

In the second photo the ridgeline is the "authentic" feature, and thus the utility pole can't be made to line up. This is what a conspiracy theorist would show you if he were trying to argue that the same "backdrop" had been used for two different foregrounds.

But neither one is a correct statement. Neither one respects the real relationship between foreground and background if the photographer happens to be moving around. Now the one photo I should have taken to complete this demonstration (but I didn't) is one from, say, across the access road. This would have shown a completely different foreground with an identical background to the other photos. You only have to walk 20 or 30 feet in any direction to have a completely new foreground.

The fact that we can so easily -- and without fraud or deception -- produce authentic photographs that fail the conspiracy theorists' tests shows that their tests are not effective at distinguishing real photographs from fake ones. But then again, the conspiracists aren't trying to make a rigorous scientific statement. They're trying to make a statement that's just credible enough to just enough people in order to cash in on their books and videos before people realize that the real hoax is these authors and their theories.

(Addendum: replace the digit '3' in the above file names with '1' and '2' to see the other examples taken in the other directions.)