Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

a reply to: choos

I explained that in an earlier post. If you draw the line from the tip of the shadow to the base of the object you are only establishing the plane of the shadow, and thus the plane of the light source. To get a more accurate location for the light source you have to draw the line from the tip of the shadow to the tip of the object creating the shadow and continue that line to the light source.

For the record, I did not create these images. They are from a site that looked at this information and suggested that it is possible these images are fake. They drew the lines. If I had drawn them I would have done it as I described, not as they did. That is why I said repeatedly that those lines do not depict the true angle of divergence between the shadows and went in to a lengthy description of why.

The landing site was relatively flat. They chose it partly for that reason. That does not mean there are no rocks or that it has been manicured perfectly level. It means it is relatively flat.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Torches, as in flares that emit light 360 degrees? Yeah, thats a fair comparison to a spot light that emits light in one direction. Another straw man argument. Pointless.

Yes, they require multiple independent lights. That is the whole point. It was more than one light source. Yay!

Yes, I have considered the scale of the images. Tell me how the scale of the images affects the angle of divergence of the shadows... That is the whole crux of your argument at this point. I am sure you can provide the necessary explanation.

a reply to: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Vroomfondel

The landing site was relatively flat.

That would seem to imply that any variation would have a pronounced effect. Got your red/blue shades?
www.hq.nasa.gov...


But again, with the distance to the lander, judging the azimuth of its shadow is problematic, what with perspective issues and whatnot. And, again, which of those two light sources was illuminating the area between the lander and the rocks in the foreground?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vroomfondel

At least nothing that is visible to my knowledge.

You can't see the slopes near the rocks in the foreground?

But at the distance the lander is from the camera, I don't really see how you are able to judge the angle of its shadow.

You are right about the distance affecting the ability to determine the angle. I would not use it as an example for that reason except for the severity of the divergence between the lander shadow, which appears to lay straight to the right of the lander, and the shadows of the smaller rocks toward the bottom of the image which lay more south than east. If it were not for such a huge variance I would not have used that image. Even given the distance of the lander I think the image is striking for the reasons mentioned.

Figuring the plane of the shadow helps determine the direction the light came from, but not the distance it traveled. The shadow extends directly opposite the object from the light source. The length of the shadow determines the position of the light source on that plane.

Geometry time now...

Say the shadow of the lander in that image does indeed extend straight to the right of the lander. Draw a line down the middle of the shadow and extend it infinitely in every direction. That is the plane of the light source. Now, draw a line from the tip of the shadow to the tip of the lander and extend that infinitely. The light source is somewhere on that line. Do the same thing for the shadows of the small rocks toward the bottom of the image. Those rocks and their shadows are on a different plane than the lander, by quite a good margin. If the light source was the sun, hundreds of thousands of miles away, how could the planes be so different? Remember, if the sun is the light source, it has to be on every one of those planes, and, all the lines from the tips of the shadows have to intersect at the same point in space. The further away the light source is, the more parallel the planes of the shadows will be. To have the divergence of planes as shown in the image either the light source has to be very near by, or, there must be more than one light source.

Picture three posts in a straight line at five foot intervals. Move the middle post one foot on a line perpendicular to a line connecting the other two posts. You have formed an angle by moving the middle post. The angle is very wide, close to 180 degrees, because it is only one foot deep. Now move the middle post a couple hundred thousand miles away. The angle is almost nil at this point. You guessed it - the middle post is the light source and the other two posts are the objects in the photo. If the light source is the sun the lines (shadows) will be nearly parallel. But if the light source is much closer, the lines are wide apart. Like the line of the lander shadow and the lines of the small rocks.

The extreme difference in range from the sun to a directional spot light used by a photographer should make this experiment an easy one to visualize.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Say the shadow of the lander in that image does indeed extend straight to the right of the lander.

Why? To prove your point?

That sort of assumption is problematic. Especially when it is the basis of your argument.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Tip of shadow. Tip of object. The lines appear to diverge even though in reality they are parallel. It is perspective. I don't know how much more simply I can explain this. Lines that are parallel on the ground will not be parallel on a photograph.



Of course, in the real world (no matter if that world is the Earth or the Moon), there is the additional complication that the shadows won't be exactly parallel on the ground, either, because the ground is not totally flat.

Then of course there's the fact that the camera can't necessarily see the part of the object that is casting the end of the shadow. That's especially the case with irregularly shaped rocks. The point of rock that is casting the top of the shadow behind it could easily be hidden from view, because the path of the light from the sun doesn't pass through the camera.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

no torches - as in flash lights that can have optics and baffles to allow a pinpoint beam of light - but you knew that right - and you accusse others of " strawmen - priceless

and the scale of pics is important - because in one - you hae multiple shadows that would each require its own light source - in a very small area -

you dont see any fall off [ dark areas between your fantasy " multiple lights " ] or spill creating 2 or more shadows on the same object

my football pic - and explainations - and the explainations of everyone else on this matter are clear - you are just being a delusional muppet -

i am now certain that its willfuly for " reasons "

a reply to: Rob48

Another neat thing about this photo is that you can see the shadow of the photographer's head, and therefore see where the shadow of the camera is. The shadow of the camera represents the antisolar point (the point directly opposite the sun) and this is where all the lines joining a shadow to the object that cast it will converge (if the ground is perfectly flat).

As illustrated here - I'm posting from my phone so the lines are a little clumsy.



The Apollo photo Vroomfondel posted also has the photographer's shadow in it, but Apollo cameras were chest mounted, so the actual shadow of the camera would be just out of frame. It's also a particularly bad photo to try to ascertain shadow directions, because (a) most of the shadows are hidden behind the objects that cast them, and (b) it's a jumble of uneven rocky ground.



But even so you can see that the lines projected from the rocks through their shadows converge at the location where the shadow of the camera would be. If you look at the other photos that form part of this panoramic sequence then it will be more obvious: whoever chose this particular photo, with its mostly hidden shadows, did so deliberately IMHO.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
If you can show me a photo where the shadows are 90 degrees apart like the one I showed, then we have something to talk about. But when I post a pic of shadows that are perpendicular to each other and you respond with photos that are nearly parallel, that is a waste of time.

I stopped and snapped this photo as I was cycling to work this morning. I don't have my protractor but I'm pretty sure the visual angle between the two shadows I have marked in red is a lot more than 90 degrees.



Now I can draw yellow lines linking points on shadows with the objects that cast them: the fork in the tree; the tops of the fence posts;the back corner of the van: distinctive points on the car.

If you carry those lines on they all meet at a point, well outside the frame of the photo, which is where the sun is.



Light travels in straight parallel lines. On a photograph, these lines will appear to converge at the vanishing point which will either be the sun (if the shadows are pointing towards the camera), or the antisolar point (if the shadows are pointing away from the camera).

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

Geometry time now...

Say the shadow of the lander in that image does indeed extend straight to the right of the lander. Draw a line down the middle of the shadow and extend it infinitely in every direction. That is the plane of the light source. Now, draw a line from the tip of the shadow to the tip of the lander and extend that infinitely. The light source is somewhere on that line. Do the same thing for the shadows of the small rocks toward the bottom of the image. Those rocks and their shadows are on a different plane than the lander, by quite a good margin. If the light source was the sun, hundreds of thousands of miles away, how could the planes be so different? Remember, if the sun is the light source, it has to be on every one of those planes, and, all the lines from the tips of the shadows have to intersect at the same point in space. The further away the light source is, the more parallel the planes of the shadows will be. To have the divergence of planes as shown in the image either the light source has to be very near by, or, there must be more than one light source.

You are not thinking in three dimensions. Draw the lines from the tip of the shadow to the sunlit tip of the lander. Do the same for the rocks. Again the lines meet up outside the frame showing where the sun is. Straight parallel lines, which meet at a vanishing point (the sun).



(you might have to open this image in a new tab to see it larger, or use this link: imgur.com... )


I've circled one rock in blue as the shadow direction appears ambiguous.It's hard to see the shape of the object casting it, but close inspection shows that the ground is sloping in this area:

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

The landing site was relatively flat. They chose it partly for that reason. That does not mean there are no rocks or that it has been manicured perfectly level. It means it is relatively flat.

the landing site may have been relatively flat, doesnt mean all the shadows are on flat surfaces..

also does not mean the lander was on a flat surface.. have you checked if apollo 14 was on a flat surface yet??

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Tip of shadow. Tip of object. The lines appear to diverge even though in reality they are parallel. It is perspective. I don't know how much more simply I can explain this. Lines that are parallel on the ground will not be parallel on a photograph.

Exactly. Vroomfondel does not seem to understand photography enough to grasp what he is looking at with the non-parallel shadows in t he Apollo pictures, or that picture above with the wooden posts.

A camera lens pulls in a wider angle of a scene than our eyes perceive at any given moment. That's not to say that our eyes cannot "see" the wide angle of the entire scene in front of them, but the eyes (and our brains) normally perceive only what is generally right in front of us. We can see the periphery, but we usually don't perceive it enough to notice the perspective of the entire wide-angle of the scene in our casual everyday lives.

However, a camera (albeit, just like our eyes) can capture the entire wide-angle scene, but the difference is that it present that wide-angle (3D) scene to us in a single 2D image that our brains can perceive. This allows our eyes and our brains now perceive the entire wide scene, including the periphery, because that wide-angle is presented on a single flat picture that can be perceived more easily because we can see perceive it all at one time.

It's a common effect of photography that sets photos of the world apart from the actual world our brains normally perceive. The sooner Vroomfondel understands this aspect of photography the sooner he (or she) would be able to understand why the some shadows in the Apollo pictures are not parallel...

...However, it seems increasingly clear to me that Vroomfondel appears to not want to understand, but rather continue to go around and blindly spout the uninformed and uneducated misinformation of the hoax promoters, just like a sheep.

Gentlemen (or ladies) I fully understand the idea of perspective in a photograph. I am just not willing to blindly blurt out "perspective" like a trained sheep every time something appears off in a picture. Just like I will not regurgitate "lens flare" every time I see a picture of an alleged ufo. Could it be a lens flare? Of course. Can you prove it is? NO. All you can do is provide a potential explanation, and that is always good enough for you. Unless that potential explanation goes against your beliefs, then its just someone refusing to accept your truth who doesn't understand things as well as you do.

I am not trying to prove that the shadows in those nasa images are the result of two light sources. I am only trying to prove it is possible. And you know it is. Those images can be re-created using multiple light sources. When trying to prove the images are real - you gave yourself the latitude to simply demonstrate that it is possible the images are real without actually having proven them to be so. Yet, in denying the images are fake you refuse to allow me the same latitude.

I am not arguing that the images are fake. I am arguing the automatic naysaying of those who do. One of the most important fundamental rules of science is to not have a foregone conclusion when examining evidence. You will almost always find exactly what you are looking for and nothing else. That is not science. That is a witch hunt. I know the difference. I looked at the claims and their evidence and I agreed, it is possible. That is all. I am open minded enough to allow for a truth other than my own. And you think I am the sheep. I have to laugh at that.

Through all of your attack mode responses you failed to catch the most important fact - I only argued the possibility that the images could be manufactured.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Well actually you claimed that:

In some images there were two shadows. That is what started the whole idea of the unknown light source.

Have you now abandoned that claim? The simple fact is that there is no second light source, so there is no need to speculate what the second light source is, any more than there is any need to speculate why there is a branch of Starbucks on the moon that is equally not visible in any of the photographs.

a reply to: Rob48

any more than there is any need to speculate why there is a branch of Starbucks on the moon

There is!

It's hiding behind one of the rocks that are lit by the THIRD light source.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Whose to say the Starbucks isn't the 2nd light source?

originally posted by: captainpudding
a reply to: TerryDon79

Whose to say the Starbucks isn't the 2nd light source?

Now you're just being silly.

1st light source - normal shadows in one direction
2nd light source - normal shadows in a slightly different direction
3rd light source - hides the rock and therefore the Starbucks that hides behind it

So, if you follow my 100% sound logic, Starbucks would have to be at least the 4th light source. Might even be the 5th if the light source that's used to hide the aliens and their bases are a separate one and used before the Starbucks light source.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
Gentlemen (or ladies) I fully understand the idea of perspective in a photograph. I am just not willing to blindly blurt out "perspective" like a trained sheep every time something appears off in a picture. Just like I will not regurgitate "lens flare" every time I see a picture of an alleged ufo. Could it be a lens flare? Of course. Can you prove it is? NO. All you can do is provide a potential explanation, and that is always good enough for you. Unless that potential explanation goes against your beliefs, then its just someone refusing to accept your truth who doesn't understand things as well as you do.

I am not trying to prove that the shadows in those nasa images are the result of two light sources. I am only trying to prove it is possible. And you know it is. Those images can be re-created using multiple light sources. When trying to prove the images are real - you gave yourself the latitude to simply demonstrate that it is possible the images are real without actually having proven them to be so. Yet, in denying the images are fake you refuse to allow me the same latitude.

I am not arguing that the images are fake. I am arguing the automatic naysaying of those who do. One of the most important fundamental rules of science is to not have a foregone conclusion when examining evidence. You will almost always find exactly what you are looking for and nothing else. That is not science. That is a witch hunt. I know the difference. I looked at the claims and their evidence and I agreed, it is possible. That is all. I am open minded enough to allow for a truth other than my own. And you think I am the sheep. I have to laugh at that.

Through all of your attack mode responses you failed to catch the most important fact - I only argued the possibility that the images could be manufactured.

What's your point? It's possible every photograph you've ever seen is fake. Should we then investigate everything that's ever been photographed? The mere possibility that you can recreate the photos isn't reason to suspect they are fake. Unless you're starting from a preconceived notion of course, which you claim you aren't.

a reply to: Rob48

Shadows pointing in two directions, which is what I have maintained throughout this discourse. I did not mean two shadows on each object. No image I have displayed that characteristic nor was that my intent. I apologize if that statement was misleading but I think my intent is clear looking at the body of the text presented. Shadows pointing in two directions or from two light sources, not two shadows for each object.

a reply to: face23785

No, only that not every example of image distortion should immediately be passed off as perspective.

I made my point quite clearly. When this thread started people supposedly debunked the multiple light source theory by citing evidence that suggested light could have been reflected causing the opposing shadow or illuminating something that should be in the dark. I concede, that is possible. However, possible does not prove anything. However, the people making that claim used it as conclusive proof that the images were real. Fine. If that logic works, then I am using it too - which is the whole point of my argument. Those images could be staged and look identical. It is possible. And if that is all that is needed to be accepted as proof, then I have proven those images are staged.

One side gets to use the possibility as proof, but the other side doesn't. Not fair. All I did was argue that the images could be manufactured, not genuine. All the opposition needed was proof it was possible. The same rules should apply to me. Or, lets back up to the beginning and admit that the possibility that light was reflected did not prove anything. Either one is fine with me - as long as both sides get the same treatment.