[Split]Moon hoaxes - split from: Mars Voyage too Soon?

[Shrinker]

First, using trogonometry, let's calculate the length of the LM shadow; call it 'X':

X = 6000mm / Tan 15 degrees = 22,392mm

Now, using triangulation, let's calculate ...[a load of unnecessary garbage]

Length of LM shadow with sun at 15 degrees above horizon=6000mm*tan(90-15) = 22,392mm
Length of LM shadow with sun at 15.35 degrees above horizon=6000mm*tan(90-15.35) = 21,857mm
Difference = 535mm

Not 36mm!!

And that's not even a maximum! What happens if the ground has a slight decline away from the sun of say 5 degrees? Yes, that's right, the difference gets even bigger - 1,174mm!

Not 36mm, Southwind. Not 36mm at all.

After 18 pages of vague ramblings you've finally pinned your claims on something verifiable, and surprise, surprise, you've utterly embarrassed yourself. Twice.

 

[Southwind17]

There seems to be much misunderstanding over my shadow analysis, which is not really surprising given that it's completely verbal with no diagrams. For example, when I wrote about an observation point on the 'top' and 'bottom' of the Moon I meant it assuming the rotational axis of the Moon to be horizontal, not vertical, as I think some people have interpreted.

I will proceed to prepare a FULL AND COMPLETE shadow analysis, taking full account of the FACT that I pointed out earlier, namely that the angular rotation of the Moon does not translate to an equivalent Sun angle. This is due to the sinusoidal 'movement' of the Sun across the sky, the fastest and most pronounced part being when the Sun is directly overhead.

I believe my previous calculation is wrong in that it inadvertently assumes that the Sun is, indeed, directly overhead (the calculation of 'Z'). The correct calculation, taking account of the sinusoidal 'movement' of the Sun, and hence shadows, will lead to and EVEN SMALLER shadow movement, given the low Sun angle.

I'm afraid you will all have to bear with me while I prepare the analysis, but it's important that I demonstrate to you all how right I am and wrong you are!

 

[Shrinker]

There seems to be much misunderstanding over my shadow analysis, which is not really surprising given that it's completely verbal with no diagrams. For example, when I wrote about an observation point on the 'top' and 'bottom' of the Moon I meant it assuming the rotational axis of the Moon to be horizontal, not vertical, as I think some people have interpreted.

I will proceed to prepare a FULL AND COMPLETE shadow analysis, taking full account of the FACT that I pointed out earlier, namely that the angular rotation of the Moon does not translate to an equivalent Sun angle. This is due to the sinusoidal 'movement' of the Sun across the sky, the fastest and most pronounced part being when the Sun is directly overhead.

I believe my previous calculation is wrong in that it inadvertently assumes that the Sun is, indeed, directly overhead (the calculation of 'Z'). The correct calculation, taking account of the sinusoidal 'movement' of the Sun, and hence shadows, will lead to and EVEN SMALLER shadow movement, given the low Sun angle.

I'm afraid you will all have to bear with me while I prepare the analysis, but it's important that I demonstrate to you all how right I am and wrong you are!

Looking forward to it, SW.

 

[Thabiguy]

I'm afraid you will all have to bear with me while I prepare the analysis, but it's important that I demonstrate to you all how right I am and wrong you are!

Also, I guess we shouldn't hold our breath while we wait for you to prepare your "analysis". 16 (sixteen) days ago you said that you would present Groves analysis "tomorrow". 9 days ago you said that it should be waiting for me when I get back. Lo and behold, it's still nowhere in sight.

Southwind17, are you, or are you not going to present the Groves analysis? If yes, when?

 

[332nd]

You have absolutely NO imagination, do you?!



It's probably the same one that caused the obvious hot-spot on this famous one!

No... Just no. There is no single light source on the planet, then or now, that could light up that much area.

 

[332nd]

You mean the 'technical' mission risks or the 'fake cover up' risks? Probably essentially in the same way, actually!

The "fake cove up risks" Do you actually believe that loosing the lives of 2-3 men plus the money involved was so great that getting caught and called out by Russia (or anyone else at that time) seemed worth it?

 

[ArmillarySphere]

Hilarious. Yet another HB failing at basic trigonometry. And another thing:

it's important that I demonstrate to you all how right I am and wrong you are!

That about sums it up for Southwind17's position - it's not a matter of finding out the truth, it's a matter of winning on points. Tragic, but all too common.

For the record, the Moon's rotational axis is inclined 1.5424° to the ecliptic, or 6.687° to its orbital plane.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon

Apollo 11 set down at 0° 40' 26.69" N, 23° 28' 22.69" E using the IAU Mean Earth Polar Axis
coordinate system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11

This means that the pure shortening/elongation calculation is actually a pretty good approximation - the rotation axis would be inclined less than 10° off the lunar surface, tops, which means the sideways movement of the shadows is pretty small. That said, the subsequent lengthening calculation was just broken. Hint: The angle between the LM/flagpole and the ground is not what you should be changing...

 

[Shrinker]

Hilarious. Yet another HB failing at basic trigonometry. And another thing:


That about sums it up for Southwind17's position - it's not a matter of finding out the truth, it's a matter of winning on points. Tragic, but all too common.

For the record, the Moon's rotational axis is inclined 1.5424° to the ecliptic, or 6.687° to its orbital plane.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon

Apollo 11 set down at 0° 40' 26.69" N, 23° 28' 22.69" E using the IAU Mean Earth Polar Axis
coordinate system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11

This means that the pure shortening/elongation calculation is actually a pretty good approximation - the rotation axis would be inclined less than 10° off the lunar surface, tops, which means the sideways movement of the shadows is pretty small. That said, the subsequent lengthening calculation was just broken. Hint: The angle between the LM/flagpole and the ground is not what you should be changing...

Well I for one am on the edge of my seat. Hopefully SW won't get distracted now because if he proves that the shadow movement we've all seen should not be there, he'll have proved the video wasn't shot on the moon. This is cutting edge research happening right here folks.

Of course if he fails to make his case, he'll have to inflate his conspiracy theory to include the guys who designed and operated the megawatt lighting rig that could actually move in sync with the moon's rotation. But who doubts he'll have any problem doing that?

 

[Belz...]

Which 'multiple directional light sources' would those be, then?!

So you are now denying that there was more than one light source in the studio ?

 

[Belz...]

You guys don't even know what Apollo Mission video footage we're looking at?!

Troll.

 

[Southwind17]

OK guys, I think you got me with the video!

My calculations are correct for a 90 degree Sun angle, i.e. directly overhead, and I realize now that the low Sun angle will accentuate the change in shadow length and not diminish it, as I first thought (not sure why I figured that, really; can only put it down to a late nighter!). So, we have some video footage that seems to have been shot on the lunar surface. A mobile lighting rig seems possible, but even I would find that a stretch!

I'll take this into account and review how I now feel about the other anomalies. This whole shadow issue has caused me to want to check out a few other aspects, but I'll readily admit now you've definitely got me on the ropes! Question is: will I topple? Seems possible!

 

[sts60]

Southwind17, I haven't done the calculations myself, so I won't weigh in on it, but I always applaud someone who can say "I was wrong."

I'm still hoping you'll take a minute to answer the clarifying questions last asked in post 660. Because I'm still not clear on exactly which parts of Apollo you do not believe. You've said you're "95%" that it happened; you've implied you don't believe any of the landings; some of your posts have hinted that you disbelieve only men walking on the Moon. I like to think I have reasonably good reading comprehension skills, but I am left wondering what your exact beliefs are. Or, as I asked way back in this thread, is this really just an epistemological exercise for you?

 

[PixyMisa]

I'm torn.

On the one hand, that was a very reasonable response from Southwind.

On the other hand, it's the only remotely reasonable post he's made in the entire thread, the rest being a litany of logical fallacies, middle-school debating tricks, and frantic dodging of both questions and evidence.

If he follows through and sees sense, I'll still give him credit for that. But I'm not holding my breath.

 

[LudicrusSextus]

I've downloaded a higher quality copy of the Apollo 11 DAC footage from:

www dot hq dot nasa dot gov/alsj/a11/a11f1093740.mov

(Sorry, can't post links yet).

This video clearly shows something else rather interesting. Step through it frame by frame when an astronaut is standing close to the flag and down-sun from it. The flag is already moderately brightly lit, but when an astronaut stands in this position it brightens appreciably. (Frames 2160-2170 give a good example - there are many more).

So, ref the HBs' "filled in shadows" claims: if the reflection from a single astronaut can provide this much fill-in, how much could be provided by the ENTIRE LUNAR SURFACE? Enough to light Aldrin coming down the ladder, maybe?

 

[PetersCreek]

Southwind17, I haven't done the calculations myself, so I won't weigh in on it, but I always applaud someone who can say "I was wrong."

Seconded.

This video clearly shows something else rather interesting. Step through it frame by frame when an astronaut is standing close to the flag and down-sun from it. The flag is already moderately brightly lit, but when an astronaut stands in this position it brightens appreciably. (Frames 2160-2170 give a good example - there are many more).

Nice catch. I just don't get CTs' objections to the astronauts themselves being effective reflectors. As a photographer, I frequently use white reflectors...many of them with far less surface area than the your typical astronaut. My smallest is about a foot across. And they don't even have to be made of fancy, high-tech fabric. A white index card and rubber band used with an electronic flash is a time-honored method of providing diffuse fill light. I've also used large pieces of card stock or poster board as inexpensive fill reflectors. They work quite nicely, too.

 

[Shrinker]

OK guys, I think you got me with the video!

My calculations are correct for a 90 degree Sun angle, i.e. directly overhead, and I realize now that the low Sun angle will accentuate the change in shadow length and not diminish it, as I first thought (not sure why I figured that, really; can only put it down to a late nighter!). So, we have some video footage that seems to have been shot on the lunar surface. A mobile lighting rig seems possible, but even I would find that a stretch!

I'll take this into account and review how I now feel about the other anomalies. This whole shadow issue has caused me to want to check out a few other aspects, but I'll readily admit now you've definitely got me on the ropes! Question is: will I topple? Seems possible!

Very big of you Southwind. I guess I get to eat my last few words on the subject.

 

[Belz...]

I've downloaded a higher quality copy of the Apollo 11 DAC footage from:

www dot hq dot nasa dot gov/alsj/a11/a11f1093740.mov

Here you go:

www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11f1093740.mov

 

[SpitfireIX]

Here you go:

www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11f1093740.mov

Fixed link for you.

 

[Southwind17]

I've downloaded a higher quality copy of the Apollo 11 DAC footage from:

www dot hq dot nasa dot gov/alsj/a11/a11f1093740.mov

(Sorry, can't post links yet).

This video clearly shows something else rather interesting. Step through it frame by frame when an astronaut is standing close to the flag and down-sun from it. The flag is already moderately brightly lit, but when an astronaut stands in this position it brightens appreciably. (Frames 2160-2170 give a good example - there are many more).

So, ref the HBs' "filled in shadows" claims: if the reflection from a single astronaut can provide this much fill-in, how much could be provided by the ENTIRE LUNAR SURFACE? Enough to light Aldrin coming down the ladder, maybe?

Hopefully my last post will convince most people that I'm inclined to consider this video footage genuine. There are, however, two main anomalies that I'd welcome peoples views on:

To me, the shadow lengths do not seem at all consistent with a 15-degree Sun angle. The flagpole shadow should be in the order of 8.2m long and the shadows of the astronauts should be typically around 7.2m long. I realize these figures assume flat ground, but that would appear to be the case, given the essentially straight line that the flagpole shadow casts and the movements of the astronauts across the terrain.

The shadows appear to converge. If you mark the direction of the shadow of the astronaut who appears from the bottom of the image and traverses all the way to the top of the image, at intervals, plus the shadow of the flagpole, you will find that they all consistenly converge (I did it using Post-it notes). Again, I realize that undulating terrain can cause this effect, but as pointed out above, the terrain appears to be flat, or at least in a common plane. I also realize that the slight bending of the astronaut makes identifying the exact direction of the shadow not easy, but the converging effect can be seen to apply when the astronaut is moving back towards the camera also, which should negate any margin of error.

One other interesting observation, can anybody explain why the terrain detail seems to change with virtually every frame? The lighting, and hence exposure, are, presumably, fixed, so that doesn't seem to account for it. I'm not suggesting anything untoward here, but it almost appears that small surface features come and go. I appreciate that some 'specks' appear and disappear in the space of a single frame, which to me suggests a speck of dust on the film, but some 'additions' remain over a number of frames, and even permanently. It doesn't appear to be dust on the outside of the camera lens.

Finally, with regard to the fill lighting, I see your point, but I do note the closeness of the astronaut to the flag when it's observed. In the 'Aldrin descending the ladder' photos Armstrong is positioned a relatively long distance away.

 

[slyjoe]

...

One other interesting observation, can anybody explain why the terrain detail seems to change with virtually every frame? The lighting, and hence exposure, are, presumably, fixed, so that doesn't seem to account for it. I'm not suggesting anything untoward here, but it almost appears that small surface features come and go. I appreciate that some 'specks' appear and disappear in the space of a single frame, which to me suggests a speck of dust on the film, but some 'additions' remain over a number of frames, and even permanently. It doesn't appear to be dust on the outside of the camera lens.

What is the amount of compression used in creating the mov? Remember, you aren't looking at film on the internet.