New smoking guns in Apollo moon hoax: White cloth canvas on floor clearly seen!

Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by Ove38

 

You don't, the shadows aren't like that in your image......

Are you blind ?

Originally posted by Ove38

Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by Ove38

 

You don't, the shadows aren't like that in your image......

Are you blind ?

No, I just understand the effects of terrain on shadows. I find it hilarious that you draw lines indicating shadow direction and don't think about how exactly they managed to cover up the shadows of every other item facing the wrong way.

Look, here is the simplest I can explain it. When you're looking in perspective, the terrain will affect how shadows appear. Every example I have given has absolutely identical shadow angles, except from the perspective you view them at they all appear to angle inwards. This is because the light travels further to make this shadow, and so appears to curve either towards or away from you depending on the terrain.

Here are 9 poles rendered on a ridgeline similar to the Apollo 17 shot. As you can see, the outer shadows seem to curve in at an incredible angle, over 45 degrees at the edge. Yet as before every single shadow here is parallel. They do not actually curve in.



Here is a video explaining this effect:


You really need to spend less time just accepting conspiracy arguments without thinking.

Originally posted by exponent

The terrain is not like that at all, there is "sunlight" from east and west in the Apollo images, how do you explain that ?




source:
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...

reply to post by exponent


YOU ROCK! That chart was a great deal of work to help me see the errors of my simple math. Now that you've shown your talent, I expect you will be recruited in other threads to help figure things out.

I'm sorry I didn't get back with you sooner, but when I came home I fell asleep. Hard night. This morning I had some more time.

I haven't really gone into this subject very in-depth before. Even though I have my suspicions ( my initial thought before this thread was that we probably went, but at least some of the photos were recreated for one reason or another. Right now, I'm rethinking that thought.), my opinion still remains open. Although, I don't think any of my opinions are ever closed or totally formed. I think just about everyone on this site have those annoying suspicions in one area or another.

I did make a fools error in math. I am embarrassed. I hope my children never get to see it. They would never let me live it down.

What I was saying is that if you found times that they took more photos than was possible by a human then that would prove there was something dodgy going on

That was along my idea of thought as well. But, alas, my poor math skills were making them out to be able to take more photos than humanly possible.

I had started, and by no means could it compare to yours, a database of the Hasselbad moom walking pictures for myself, one of the fields I have is time. I have this problem:

The only times I could find on that site (I went to many pages within the site) for Hasselbad pics were for 13 photos including the series for the intial panaramic shot. I tried other sites to no avail.

I am curious as to where you found them, could you possibly give me the link or site that you found them on? I would really like to finish my database for a couple of reasons. I never really finish anything I start, I'm working to have better habits, and my husband is a DBA and I want to be able to show him.

I've really enjoyed this virtual discussion. I haven't, for a long time, exercised my brain as much as I have on this. Sad but true.

reply to post by Ove38


I have no idea why you think the terrain is not a match, you can clearly see that there is a gradual curve and indeed you can see that the shadows converge on either side in an identical fashion.

There is only one source of light and that is the sun. Would you like me to render this again but with a full semicircle?

edit: I did so but rather roughly and without much care, this is with a wide angle lens:


And of course all shadows are really parallel

Originally posted by froglette
reply to post by exponent

 

YOU ROCK! That chart was a great deal of work to help me see the errors of my simple math. Now that you've shown your talent, I expect you will be recruited in other threads to help figure things out.

Most people aren't really interested in the truth, so generally they're only concerned with what they think. I'm glad to see you looking at this from a neutral perspective.

I'm sorry I didn't get back with you sooner, but when I came home I fell asleep. Hard night. This morning I had some more time.

No need to apologise, I vanish from this forum for months at a time when I don't feel particularly like posting

The only times I could find on that site (I went to many pages within the site) for Hasselbad pics were for 13 photos including the series for the intial panaramic shot. I tried other sites to no avail.

I am curious as to where you found them, could you possibly give me the link or site that you found them on? I would really like to finish my database for a couple of reasons. I never really finish anything I start, I'm working to have better habits, and my husband is a DBA and I want to be able to show him.

The second link I gave you in the previous post is what contains the times. They are not specified for every image though, just for those of importance where they can cross reference them easily: www.hq.nasa.gov...

I've really enjoyed this virtual discussion. I haven't, for a long time, exercised my brain as much as I have on this. Sad but true.

It's part of the reason I come here, to keep the mental skills sharp.

Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by Ove38

 

I have no idea why you think the terrain is not a match, you can clearly see that there is a gradual curve and indeed you can see that the shadows converge on either side in an identical fashion.

There is only one source of light and that is the sun. Would you like me to render this again but with a full semicircle?

What's the point with your renderings ? Everyone can see, that the light shines from both east and west in this Apollo image, and that there is no crater in front of the camera.

Could you make fisheye image correction ? and see what we then get out of this Apollo image ?

Originally posted by Ove38
What's the point with your renderings ? Everyone can see, that the light shines from both east and west in this Apollo image, and that there is no crater in front of the camera.

Only you seem to be able to see this, and I guess it's because you don't understand how light works. If the light was shining from both east and west then why does the astronaut have only a single shadow? Why does every item have only a single shadow?

Could you make fisheye image correction ? and see what we then get out of this Apollo image ?

The image already is wide angle, and whether affected by terrain or not, all shadows appear to converge in exactly the same fashion.

PS. The astronaut is pretty much standing on the ridgeline. Notice how the regolith by his feet is mostly in shadow, this is because it is on a slope that is very close to the current sun angle.

Once the website is back up I will stitch the photos together but I don't think it'll ever convince you.

The fisheye lens explanation is better, the image was taken with a fisheye lens, that's way the shadows appear like they do in the Apollo "moon surface" image.

The question is, what happens to "the moon" if we make a fisheye correction ? will we find ourselves in a studio on earth ?

Originally posted by exponent
Once the website is back up I will stitch the photos together but I don't think it'll ever convince you.

Will the images still be there ?

Keep in mind that the Apollo image is a seriously distorted image.

Originally posted by Ove38
The fisheye lens explanation is better, the image was taken with a fisheye lens, that's way the shadows appear like they do in the Apollo "moon surface" image.

No, the apollo photos you're talking about were taken with normal rectilinear lenses. The wide field caused by panorama does assist the curvature but you can replicate it (as I did) with a wide angle rectilinear.

The question is, what happens to "the moon" if we make a fisheye correction ? will we find ourselves in a studio on earth ?

edit on 1-12-2012 by Ove38 because: text fix

What exactly would you like to see 'corrected'?

Will the images still be there ?

Keep in mind that the Apollo image is a seriously distorted image.

Of course they will be, and it's not very distorted at all, it's about 32mm equiv so a slightly wide angle lens

Sorry for butting in for a sec. Is this a real photo? If so do you know which mission? You got me thinking Ove38.



I think you need to get a 90 degree angle lens plugin for your 3d program.

reply to post by MortPenguin


That would be AS11-40-5961:

archive.org...

By 90 degree do you mean orthographic or a horizontal field of view of 90 degrees? These photos were taken with a 60mm lens on 6x6 I think.

Originally posted by MortPenguin
Sorry for butting in for a sec. Is this a real photo? If so do you know which mission? You got me thinking Ove38.

I think you need to get a 90 degree angle lens plugin for your 3d program.

Thats AS11-40-5961

upload.wikimedia.org...

What do you make of this?

Ove38's photos made me spot something. In his photo all shadows lead back to the astronaut's chest. As they do in this one. Except the shadows on the LEM do not. This photo has to be fake right? A composite of two photos?

Originally posted by exponent
What exactly would you like to see 'corrected'?

These two images are seriously distorted, because a fisheye lense was used. If you correct the fisheye lens distortion, you will see what this really looked like, when the pictures were taken.

reply to post by MortPenguin


Uh, you realise the shadows you've drawn on the LEM don't match up at all right? You're drawing lines in the direction of shadow, but the rest you are connecting objects to their shadow projections. One converges on the camera, one converges on roughly the vanishing point.

You're looking at two different things, that's why they don't match.

Originally posted by Ove38

Originally posted by exponent
What exactly would you like to see 'corrected'?

These two images are seriously distorted, because a fisheye lense was used.

A fisheye lens was not used, a slightly wide angle lens was, and this is not the cause of the shadows you see, that is perspective and terrain.

If you correct the fisheye lens distortion, you will see what this really looked like, when the pictures were taken.

So if you believe this will expose some sort of hoax why don't you do it?

Lol I lined up the peak of the rocks with the tip of the shadow, yes and while doing this realised I cannot do this with the LEM. Look at the object standing next to the LEM and then at the LEM. I drew the shadow directions exactly correct. Now do it the other way, trace all the shadows and neither matches. Please don't make me need to upload again. Remember what you said about open mind?

Originally posted by conar
And there is other stuff that you will deny have any indication that the moon landing was faked, so why waste my time

Now tell me kid, what did you pick up in school today dear little boy of mine? What did the bastards pushed you with dear little Cowboy of mine? Then you are supposed to say >>I learned we were the first to put a man on the Moon, and i'm sure we will have a McDonal up there soon, the next step will be a military base, but of course just to protect the human race out from space just in case, that's what we learn in school today that's what we learn in school