The Moon Hoax-A Discussion of a Photo

Discussion in 'Moon Landing' started by KChrisC, Jan 31, 2016.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. KChrisC

    KChrisC New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    3
    This photo is one of my all time favs form the Moon landing hoax record.

    Who knew shadows could play Twister?!

    AS16-107-17529HR.jpg
     
    PeoplesRepublicOfMe likes this.
  2. culldav

    culldav Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2012
    Messages:
    4,538
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The shadows looks strange.

    I thought the moon was round, but the back horizon looks perfectly straight also.

    I remember at school they showed pictures of Mars without polar ice caps also. Not sure how they did that.
     
  3. waltky

    waltky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    30,071
    Likes Received:
    1,204
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Uncle Ferd wantin' to know...

    ... how'd dat telephone pole get inna background...

    ... o' dat one pic?
    :confusion:
     
  4. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,091
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Is that it? You have discovered that shadow directions vary according to terrain? So if it was faked on Earth are you claiming they penciled them in or something?

    [​IMG]

    Useless.
     
  5. culldav

    culldav Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2012
    Messages:
    4,538
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    48

    While I agree that different levels of terrain can cause different angles of shadows. From the photograph KCrhisC supplied, it does seem fairly obvious there is no terrain level difference (perfectly flat), where the individual objects are located, to cause the terrain shadow distortion you speak of in the photograph you provided.
     
    PeoplesRepublicOfMe likes this.
  6. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    55,517
    Likes Received:
    27,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It may seem flat, but it isn't. That's one way those lunar photos can mess with your perception.

    The same thing can be seen in the next photo in the series also: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-107-17530HR.jpg

    Also, this is kind of neat. Description for number 17529: 146:49:12 Down-Sun "locator" of the Station 8 rake site. Charlie is in the background and seems to be looking at his camera as he takes either AS16-108-17682 or 17683. The Rover is at the right.

    That means Charlie, the astronaut shown in your photo, was taking these at that time:
    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-108-17682HR.jpg
    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-108-17683HR.jpg

    Earlier in his sequence of photos, you can see a nice pan of the area:
    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-108-17670HR.jpg
    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-108-17671HR.jpg
    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-108-17672HR.jpg
    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-108-17673HR.jpg
    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-108-17674HR.jpg
    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-108-17675HR.jpg
    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-108-17676HR.jpg
    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-108-17677HR.jpg
    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-108-17678HR.jpg
    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-108-17679HR.jpg
    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-108-17680HR.jpg
    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-108-17681HR.jpg

    I'd say 17674 - 17679 in particular give a good idea of how uneven the terrain actually is. You only really see it when there are enough shadows evident to make it out. Your selected photo is a down-sun, which actually hides most of the shadows and leaves the surface looking very washed-out and lacking in details.
     
  7. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,091
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    One other consideration is that the foreground pole is not vertical.
     
  8. Descartes

    Descartes Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    422
    Likes Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I don't think the pole is too much off vertical to cause much difference.

    The big question I have is: Where is the shadow for the distant astronaut? :)
    I guess they forgot to paste it in!:roll:
     
    PeoplesRepublicOfMe likes this.
  9. KChrisC

    KChrisC New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Yes, and no. No, shadows do not change direction due to terrain, but yes, the terrain in that photo is indeed pretty flat.

    Shadows do not change direction due to terrain. A shadow is a "wall" of low, or absent, light. Not being a material object, shadows cannot be redirected by terrain.

    In the 80s, during guard duty, or downtime at tank ranges, I actively observed how shadows behaved as the terrain under them varied. A shadow may seem to disappear into a depression, but will then reappear on the other side along the a same line as it entered. Also, if the shadow falls along a slope, of any angle, the shadow will grow thicker, but will not change direction.

    During guard duty on our base (Kaserne), I would also quite frequently find myself actively observing how my shadow, or shadows from other things, would appear relative to the various sources of light from the large lamps attached to the maintenance buildings. I observed that the only reason shadows would have different lengths, convergence, or fall in varying directions is because of close by light sources and/or multiple light sources.

    In retrospect, never did I think that my little Army boredom-killer pastime would one day prove useful.

    Incidentally, I just had an article published on AULIS.com about the several anomalies, and smoking-guns, in just one Apollo photo (AS15-86-11603).

    The article is here: http://www.aulis.com/photostudy.htm
     
  10. KChrisC

    KChrisC New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    3

    Good eye.

    Based on what I have observed elsewhere in the photo record, the astronaut probably was pasted in, and sans shadow.

    Incidentally, I just had an article published on AULIS.com that deals with, amongst other things, missing shadows.

    It is here: http://www.aulis.com/photostudy.htm

    They forgot the shadows of the rover, the astronaut, and most revealing of all, an entire SEP pallet.
     
    PeoplesRepublicOfMe likes this.
  11. KChrisC

    KChrisC New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    3
    This photo bugged me for the longest time. There are several anomalies in it, but one biggie.

    Something about this photo kept gnawing at me, but no matter how many times I inspected it, I could not spot the "biggie" anomaly. Then one night, with just a quick glance, I spotted it.

    Can you spot all of the anomalies, especially the "biggie?"

    AS17-134-20426HR.jpg
     
  12. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,091
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You have the observation skills of a very poor layman, no wonder Aulis snapped your bullcrap up:-

    [​IMG]

    Your first instinct was correct, it didn't. These pictures were poublished in 1971-2. To claim that things were "pasted in" is preposterous. The digital era was not even close when these photographs came out. I suspect yoi will ignore the picture above or foolishly claim it was faked, yet anybody with 5 minutes and the intent can verify that your claim is total rubbish.
     
  13. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,091
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Mr. Caldwell has no specific qualifications in photographic or space program analysis, which reinforces the points made in this article."

    Says it all really. There are no anomalies in that picture. Your method and conclusions do not seem to be steeped in any scientic rigor.
     
  14. waltky

    waltky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    30,071
    Likes Received:
    1,204
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    KChrisC wrote: This photo bugged me for the longest time. There are several anomalies in it, but one biggie

    Yea...

    ... Granny thought dat Jimmy Johns delivery truck inna background...
    :grandma:
    ... was kinda suspicious.
     
  15. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    PeoplesRepublicOfMe likes this.
  16. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,091
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Small uneven terrain, twisting around as he made it. The idea that they would have different boots is a ridiculous claim in the first place, let alone that and someone took a phorograph of it as well.
     
  17. Descartes

    Descartes Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    422
    Likes Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Beta, you are right. The image you used as an example of shadow directions is "useless" - because it is obviously a model with probably an artificial light source. From the image we don't know the placement of the light nor do we know the source of light and its characteristics. All point sources of light radiate in a radial pattern. Just the placement of the light could account for the effects we see in your example.

    Also, the terrain scale dimensions of this model are extremely exaggerated when compared to the real Apollo pics.

    The only way to do this right would have been to use actual sunlight with parallel light rays - and pay closer attention to the actual terrain dimensional scale... And you are the one claiming hoax video makers are corrupt! :roll:
     
  18. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,091
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is so obviously sunlight, you really have no moral compass do you!

    No they most certainly are not! This demonstrates that you have paid no attention to the hours of continuous EVA footage available.

    The example uses sunlight. Are you that inept that you can't place some small sticks in the ground on a sunny day and see this yourself? Must I do everything for you!


    http://www.soccerissue.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/website-picture-of-goal-Posts.jpg

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    This is the part where you concede that you are wrong. But that usually only occurs when the person isn't a conspiracy theorist!
     
  19. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,091
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I wish to clarify my post above concerning the way shadows change direction on pictures. Terrain is certainly a consideration for this, but it does not change the direction of the shadow from directly in line with the light source. It is simply a result of changing the viewing angle of an object's shadow that does this.

    A great example of this is where a shadow hits a brick wall. It completely bends upwards:-

    In line
    http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/shadow-man-white-brick-wall-wooden-floor-44721986.jpg

    Offset
    http://www.albertpeia.com/rome-shadows.jpg
     
  20. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,091
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You must be so proud to get the recognition you so desparately crave:roll:

    Point by ignorant point.

    Stagelines Basically begging the question. You cannot see depressions, therefore you claim they are not there. The fact that you cannot see them or that terrain in the background can be a considerable distance away without any atmospheric distortion is what one would expect. Your claim is nothing more than your biased opinion.

    Terrain Carpet Lines Pretty much the same thing. The bootprint was an old observation from Jack White and is simply a distorted partial.

    Rover or Magic Carpet They reversed the rover. The tracks are visible from a better direction.

    https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-86-11599HR.jpg

    Astronaut a Glow The rover itself is replete with reflective surfaces as is the astronaut taking the picture. Your observations about shadows and legs are simply caused by terrain. It is impossible to get across quite how useless your observations are. It suggests a degree of image manipulation very pre-digital age that is ludicrous and pointless.

    Mystical Light or Fill Light Answered above. The LRV has numerous reflective surfaces. Even sideways on it is blatantly obvious. We only need to look at his visor to see a complete absence of any fill lighting!

    Phantom Rover casts no Shadow Smoking Gun One Poor observation and ignorance of shadows.

    The Light Angels or a Fill Light? Smoking Gun Two The complete absence of the lower bar to the right gives the obvious clue. The object's shadow is cast on the edge of the depression in which it was placed. Your observations on lighting are just idle speculation. It almost appears that your inability to see basic things is clouding your poor judgement.

    'Vampire' Light Back and Left So to get around the absence of your ridiculous "fill light" claim, we now have an even more ludicrous claim that they used an overlay on the visor(pre-digital!). Then we get your enhanced visor nonsense. I read it many times and am just mystified at what you are talking about? There is nothing suspicious in that area whatsoever.


    Conclusion:- Don't give up your day job.
     
  21. KChrisC

    KChrisC New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    3
    In the following first three photos, one can see an additional, but fainter, shadow cast by the LEM. Once again from my extensive history of playing with light and shadows while on boring guard duty, comes an explanation.

    The hoaxters used a super light of some type with a reflector at its back. Like a typical flashlight. If the illuminated subject is too close to this type of light source, the various points of reflection from the back reflector will act as multiple sources of light.

    In the first three photos the hoaxters put the light source too close. Light then from different points of the light source's back reflector illuminated the LEM from at least two angles. This resulted in the casting of at least two discernible shadows from the LEM.

    The fourth picture is with the light source and LEM aligned correctly, preventing the "ghost" shadows seen in the first three.

    AS14-65-9211HR.jpg AS14-65-9212HR.jpg AS14-66-9319HR.jpg
    AS14-65-9213HR.jpg
     
  22. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    55,517
    Likes Received:
    27,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Uneven terrain, of course. Plus the sun is rather high in that series of images, which makes all of the shadows rather short.

    Conspiracy theorists always jump to the most ridiculous conclusion and then assert that only it can be the truth, and they ignore facts where convenient in order to sustain that conclusion. I was able to show earlier, for instance, just how uneven the terrain actually was:

    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-108-17674HR.jpg
    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-108-17675HR.jpg
    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-108-17676HR.jpg
    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-108-17677HR.jpg
    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-108-17678HR.jpg
    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-108-17679HR.jpg

    ^ These are part of a pan shot by the astronaut (Charlie) seen in the original photo used to try and argue in favor of a hoax. Yes, both had cameras, and in fact Charlie as pictured in that image is looking down at his camera and taking other photos at that moment. Specifically, these:

    Don't be a conspiracy (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*). Investigate the facts and, for God's sake, be reasonable when evaluating them and the likelihood of any given scenario. Moon conspiracy theorists make me weep for humanity.

    Check it out: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html
    There is such a wealth of information, with so many photos and videos from each of the Apollo missions, and lots of other data and information as well. Conspiracy theorists don't even understand what all they're denying in their paranoid ignorance (or is that ignorant paranoia?)
     
  23. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    55,517
    Likes Received:
    27,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That is a strange effect, but I don't agree with your conclusion about it. I notice that the double shadow effect shifts a bit from one photo to the next. I'd have to guess that it's being produced within the camera itself.
     
  24. KChrisC

    KChrisC New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Thanks for the reply.

    It is unlikely that this effect is produced within the camera. If one were to experiment with a flashlight, one can duplicate this result.

    Below is a rudimentary photo showing the effect. My daughter took the photo while I held the flashlight. The "ghost" shadow can be seen to the left of the "main," darker shadow. As I explained, this is caused by the subject being too close to a back-reflected light source, like my flashlight. The light from the left and right sides (And/or top and bottom) illuminate the subject independently, and two, or more, shadows are cast.

    Of course this is not definitive proof, but just "another brick in the wall" that is the Moon landing hoax. At a minimum, were both thinking, and that's a good thing.

    Cheers.

    DualShadow.jpg
     
  25. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    55,517
    Likes Received:
    27,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How can you say this with certainty? The sun also behaves in a way unfamiliar to us in their cameras, appearing much larger than it really was. That was an artefact of the light reflecting within the apparatus, creating a bright halo effect around the solar disc in the photos. At any rate, you can't just dismiss all possibilities but the pro-hoax one, especially in light of all of the evidence against a hoax and the great unlikelihood of a hoax having succeeded.

    I can assure you that this "wall" has no "bricks" in it whatsoever. It annoys me when amateurs overestimate their knowledge when examining Apollo photos and videos.

    One problem with the Apollo images compared to your example here is that the "ghost shadow" is very fuzzy in your example, but not in the Apollo images. Your ghost is also much larger relative to the fuzzy main shadow. Also, you've dismissed my point earlier about the apparent ghost in the Apollo images shifting position with the camera relative to the actual shadow. No, overall I think you're seeing what you want to see here and failing to consider alternative possibilities.

    Compare your examples to these:
    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-66-9317HR.jpg
    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-66-9318HR.jpg
    ... And also to one another. Your "ghost shadow" is not at all consistent from one image to the next, in addition to not being large or fuzzy enough to match your home flashlight image. PLUS, the overall lighting is, as ever, far too consistent for any artificial light source to have been used. The entire landscape is evenly lit in all Apollo photographs. The only apparent deviation from this is in down-sun images, where the Heiligenschein effect can typically be seen, which has been falsely called a "hot spot" by CTs. Regolith has a good amount of glass in it, and that causes it to reflect sunlight very strongly back towards its source. The same happens with dewy grass:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Heiligenschein.JPG

    Something else to note - both astronauts were taking photos of this kind. Yours are from Al, shot from his window. My examples are from Charlie, shot from his window. Their photos obviously do not show the same effect. The ALSJ description for your 65-9211 example, where the apparent ghost shadow looks really strong, says this: Down-Sun with the dramatic washout.

    We can also compare these Apollo 14 photos with similar shots from other missions:
    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-85-11384HR.jpg
    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-85-11385HR.jpg
    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-85-11386HR.jpg

    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-113-18298HR.jpg
    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-113-18302HR.jpg
    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-113-18303HR.jpg
    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-113-18306HR.jpg
    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-113-18309HR.jpg

    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-147-22469HR.jpg
    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-147-22470HR.jpg
    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-147-22473HR.jpg
    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-147-22482HR.jpg

    And finally, I'm attaching two closeups - one from 65-9211 and one from 65-9212. Your alleged ghost shadow shifts relative position dramatically. Given this, given the inconsistency with your fuzzy flashlight example, and given the lack of this effect in the other set of images taken on the same mission, but with another camera out of another window, and of course given the evidence for the reality of the Apollo missions overall, I do not find your assertion reasonable or realistic.
    Screenshot at 2016-02-02 18:26:56.png
    Screenshot at 2016-02-02 18:27:19.png
     

Share This Page