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

Originally posted by MortPenguin
This is the landing module in question next to the landing module photo taken at a closer distance. See the black lines at the bottom. The foot pads line up. In perspective this tells us these photos were taken at the same elevation. See how much the horizon has changed too.

This is a very interesting claim, but side by side is a hard way to analyse height differences. Better is to retry and reduce perspective distortion and align the two images in an animation. This is what I have now done:



As you can see, there is indeed a drop in perspective.

Lets be clear though. The claim that 'apollo photographs were faked by combining multiple staged photographs' (which I am implying from your argument) is an exceptional one, and so exceptional evidence needs to be presented for it.

Shadow analysis can occasionally be valuable but I am struggling to think of a time when it has been. In order to prove this claim though you would need much stronger evidence that the shadows were definitively anomalous. Hand drawn lines and side by side estimations are very much insufficient to prove anything to even a casual level, they certainly wouldn't be accepted anywhere formal.

Your entire premise is based on the relative flatness of the moon, but this is a faulty premise. It's true that they aimed for a flatter area to land, but as you can see by the terrain maps there are several large craters in the immediate vicinity and the LEM itself did not land perfectly even. The terrain of the moon in this area is gradual and smooth, not nonexistent.

Originally posted by MortPenguin
Prove it Exponent. If you want to call me ignorant. Recreate the scene in the photo with posts. Looking at the LM from the side it appears to be on an incline of about 3 degrees (to be generous). Show me how you can get shadows almost perpendicular to one another. Or just show me on the photo how they are not perpendicular.

I've been asking for someone to do this for like 3 days.

edit on 3-12-2012 by MortPenguin because: (no reason given)

Go on google, find any picture depicting shadows on natural terrain with the sun at a low angle behind the viewer, now try to recreate that picture to your satisfaction......oh, guess what? We did that already and you still thought the picture was "doctored".

You either have issues with your eyesight or you are stubbornly repressing that rare misnomer that is common sense.

reply to post by MortPenguin


It's your DRAWINGs that defy the laws of physics!!!

Originally posted by MortPenguin
Here is my recreation. Impossible. Defies the laws of physics. Just describe in words if you want how exactly these shadows don't converge at a right angle. Other than it is some vague angle of the ground.

I'm not sure what you think should converge at a right angle, do you mean the angle at which the shadows converge at their most obtuse like this?

Final chance. I'm throwing down the gauntlet. Recreate the photo. All the shadows on the ground lead to the same point. A few are a couple of degrees off but that is to be expected. Otherwise this suggests even ground. The reverse photo suggests even ground. Show me how the lunar module and solar wind experiment are going in a completely different direction. What angle would the ground need to be for this to happen?

Originally posted by MortPenguin
Final chance. I'm throwing down the gauntlet. Recreate the photo. All the shadows on the ground lead to the same point. A few are a couple of degrees off but that is to be expected. Otherwise this suggests even ground. The reverse photo suggests even ground. Show me how the lunar module and solar wind experiment are going in a completely different direction. What angle would the ground need to be for this to happen?

I'll try if you explain a little more about how you think things should work. You're the only person here advocating this particular viewpoint and so it's hard for me to know what you think should be visible. As you can see from the thread, while you seem to understand the basics of perspective, others can't even grasp that. I posted a question immediately above your post, so please answer that and let me know what exactly you think should be happening.

I do understand perspective and I've been trying to discuss this photo with you for days. If you'd just recreate the shadows as they are showing in the photo. Just place an incline about 3 degrees and posts where the rocks are, the lunar module and solar experiment. As I have pointed out several times over a few days. If these do not match the photo alter the angle to achieve similarity and record this angle please.

Do you understand eyeline? That is my other issue, as it appears that the camera's eyeline is below the landing module. That is impossible considering the reverse photo. I also worked it out on the satelite scale you showed me. The incline would need to be similar to the angle of the lunar module. Which means the ground would be a continuous inclination from the cameraman to the back of the LM. Again impossible.

This appears to be two photos on two different tilts. Note the eyeline. The lunar module would have to be on a hill much greater than a 3 degree tilt.

Originally posted by MortPenguin
If you'd just recreate the shadows as they are showing in the photo.

Recreating the terrain of Apollo 11s landing site is not an easy task to do!

Just place an incline about 3 degrees and posts where the rocks are, the lunar module and solar experiment. As I have pointed out several times over a few days. If these do not match the photo alter the angle to achieve similarity and record this angle please.

I'm afraid it isn't that simple, you've drawn your lines by hand and so they're subject to significant error. I can probably try and recreate photos from one of the later missions, ideally 17 as I happen to know there's an excellent DEM of the landing site.

Do you understand eyeline? That is my other issue, as it appears that the camera's eyeline is below the landing module. That is impossible considering the reverse photo. I also worked it out on the satelite scale you showed me. The incline would need to be similar to the angle of the lunar module. Which means the ground would be a continuous inclination from the cameraman to the back of the LM. Again impossible.

edit on 3-12-2012 by MortPenguin because: (no reason given)

I'm not entirely sure what you think is impossible here either. There are no particularly solid horizontal reference points and the camera appears to be above the LEM footpads in the first shot and above all but the lower left one in the second shot.

I'm going to have a look at the rest of the photos from the set, see if there's anything that can illustrate the terrain better.

OK. How bout you try recreate the photo as best you can? This photo from apollo 11 lol

Originally posted by MortPenguin
OK. How bout you try recreate the photo as best you can? This photo from apollo 11 lol

This picture is a mess though, you've drawn these lines by hand and even with a cursory inspection you can see that the solar foil shadow doesn't line up remotely close. I can't see where else you've actually intersected shadows.

It confuses me why you think this is any sort of evidence at all. I've done the best I could of fitting in the 4 available shots moving from the position of the first image to the closest. You can tell by the position of the horizon vs the bottom of the descent stage body the relative elevation.

You can see that between frames 1->2 and 2->3 Neil is descending, his position at frame 3 is visible in your image to the left of the double rocks with two black lines through them. Between frames 3->4 his relative elevation does not change, and as we know the lander is tilted this suggests he's walked up a slight gradient in order to keep in-line with it.

Feel free to extract the frames or use the originals if you prefer, these are

AS11-40-5927
AS11-40-5931
AS11-40-5961
AS11-40-5962



PS. I admit it's a bad match but you want me to recreate the topography of the landing site which is a bigger job by a long way.

Lol Ok we cannot perfectly describe every nick and bump from this photo. You've made this abundantly clear. However do you see the general direction of the shadows in the foreground? Do you see the general direction of the shadows of the LM and solar wind experiment? Do you see the difference between the two? That! If you feel my angles are off significantly feel perfectly free to correct them. I would like to recreate the "general direction" of these ground shadows (any that don't omit them) compared to the LM and solar wind experiment.

I suppose I could do it but not so sure on the lights. Do you know of a good free 3d program? Do you like Milkshape?

Originally posted by MortPenguin
Lol Ok we cannot perfectly describe every nick and bump from this photo. You've made this abundantly clear. However do you see the general direction of the shadows in the foreground? Do you see the general direction of the shadows of the LM and solar wind experiment? Do you see the difference between the two? That! If you feel my angles are off significantly feel perfectly free to correct them. I would like to recreate the "general direction" of these ground shadows (any that don't omit them) compared to the LM and solar wind experiment.

I suppose I could do it but not so sure on the lights. Do you know of a good free 3d program? Do you like Milkshape?

I use Blender for all of my rendering. Use the 'sun' lamp type and enable ray shadowing.

I'll post a .blend or something at some point, i'll see if i can give a trivial recreation a go, but no promises. You have to admit though that watching the bottom of the descent stage, you can see the terrain change by the horizon change. It's fairly obvious I think.

Lol yes it's very impressive. Will give blender a go.

reply to post by MortPenguin


Here's a basic rough model, took about an hour of messing around to get a LEM model imported and even now it's quite ugly!

I've added a slight rise behind the LEM to lift the shadow up and I've started sculpting out the land on the right to move shadows down slightly.

Still as you can see, the shadows of the LEM etc are pretty similar, especially the Solar Wind Experiment, which is practically identical. I clearly need to move the angle of the sun but this will result in me having to re-do a bunch of the terrain so I can't be bothered for the moment. I'll work out the actual sun angle at some point.

The rest of the shadows are fairly close, easily within terrain manipulation range.

edit: I changed the sun angles slightly. NASA records the sun angle at being between 14 and 16 degrees, but the incline we are at is unknown so I will just leave 3 renders here eventually.

65 degree sun
files.abovetopsecret.com...
70 degree sun
files.abovetopsecret.com...
75 degree sun (sorry about the Astronaut shadow but I am too lazy to move it to project correctly)
files.abovetopsecret.com...

Original Apollo photo
www.hq.nasa.gov...

reply to post by exponent


Ok here's my final attempt for now. I think I've matched the astronaut shadow, the three rocks on the right, some of the perspective rocks and the LEM and Solar Wind Experiment shadows as close as you can get them. The only terrain required to match this was this:


This corresponds to a rise of two to three feet over ten feet, a very slight slope and the majority of the plane is flat.

Mine:
files.abovetopsecret.com...

Original:
www.hq.nasa.gov...

That is amazing really. Thank you. But see this is where I run into trouble with this photo. The rocks you've placed in the photo they appear as though their shadows are long and horizontal, rather than the ground just dips to make it appear that way. The rocks around them too. So the perspective needs to be altered. But I am very impressed otherwise.

Originally posted by MortPenguin
That is amazing really. Thank you. But see this is where I run into trouble with this photo. The rocks you've placed in the photo they appear as though their shadows are long and horizontal, rather than the ground just dips to make it appear that way. The rocks around them too. So the perspective needs to be altered. But I am very impressed otherwise.

How exactly does the perspective need to be altered? The long shadows are caused by the terrain. You'll have to highlight exactly the problem for me or concede the point considering I think I've done exactly as you asked.

Originally posted by Ove38

Originally posted by DelMarvel

Originally posted by Ove38

The astronauts remained in earth orbit, the LM (inside a part of the rocket) went to the moon, it was just a trick.

edit on 2-12-2012 by Ove38 because: text fix

The radio communications between earth and the Apollo missions were tracked by multiple groups of amateurs after the spacecraft left orbit and headed towards the moon.

They were listening to a repeater

en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 2-12-2012 by Ove38 because: lin fix

If that were the case the original transmissions to the craft on the way to the moon would also have been detected both by amateurs and other nations.

And how did this allegedly work? The astronauts and all the ground crew were working off of a written script? You surely can't argue that the ground crew portion of these communications were pre-recorded, there were too many people involved and too many outsiders present. It seems equally impossible that the ground crew were working off of scripts to match pre-recorded communications. It also is ridiculous to claim that someone like Neil Armstrong whose bio and personality is very well documented would be even remotely capable of such an intense and lengthy acting job.

I'm happy that you've gone to all that trouble. Please don't get snippy. This is what I am refering to. This is not simply terrain dips lengthening shadows and changing their angle. Do you get what I mean?