qarnos
Cold-hearted skeptic
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2004
- Messages
- 2,084
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Moon Hoax conspiracy
- Thread starter TraitorBasher
- Start date
-
- Tags
- moon landing hoax
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2006
- Messages
- 7,474
ssshh, ER wants the rocket scientist to tell him the moons surface reflects light
Spindrift
Time Person of the Year, 2006
Why do I have the feeling that after RMackey answers your questions you will a) not believe him and b) still not answer anyone else questions.
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 23,323
Cool link. One of the first things that occurred to me years ago when I heard these allegations was to wonder why multiple light sources wouldn't cast multiple shadows from the same object. Many people also don't realize that the sunlight on the lunar surface was quite intense. The astronauts visors and the camera lenses had filters on them to reduce the glare. Anyone who's ever been in a snowy field on a bright sunny day can understand how bright it would have been to the naked eye.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
You shouldn't hesitate to accept help from other people. There are very, very many knowledgeable people here.
These two questions are addressed directly at the Moonbase Clavius website, here and here.
In plain English, the convergent shadow thing is hardly surprising -- you only expect parallel shadows if the background is flat and level. There are two effects at play. The first is that, because the shadow hits the ground at an angle, the "height" of the shadow is exaggerated, and it distorts the shape of the object unless it's completely vertical. The second effect, as others have already pointed out, is that the shadow direction is greatly affected by local terrain. Hills and slopes will seem to "bend" shadows. All of the Apollo landings occurred in hilly areas.
You can see this effect for yourself, just by walking around. Observe your shadow relative to other objects, like buildings, signs, trees, etc. Depending on the local slopes, shadows will either seem to converge or diverge. It's completely normal, and it's something that you've probably seen every single day of your life, unless you live in Nebraska. Those who claim otherwise are simply out of touch with reality.
Now for the "lit in shadow" effect, there's two important factors. First, none of the shadows are completely dark, because there are reflections from hills, from the gold-plated reflective LEM, and from Earthshine. You'll notice that in your daily life, completely black shadows are extremely unusual. So it goes on the Moon as well.
Second, recall that you're looking at photographs. Photographs do not look exactly the same as we perceive through our eyes. Depending on how the film is exposed and printed, the photo may accentuate shadows or bring out objects in low light. Also, many of the objects are photographed against the true black background of space, which in turn enhances their contrast. If you've ever taken a photograph of your own, you've probably experienced disappointing results where objects are washed out or bland compared to what you expected. Photos can have a "flattening" effect that brings out things that we'd expect to be darker.
If you have further questions, please go ahead and ask. However, before you do, I ask that you confirm that you understand the discussion above, and the radiation question I explained earlier. I'm perfectly capable and willing to work through this with you, but it's important to concentrate on a single issue at a time. If we jump to another topic before solving these, we'll never work through the confusion.
ktesibios
Worthless Aging Hippie
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2002
- Messages
- 1,493
There's another reason for convergent shadows, which is that a photograph is a 2 dimensional projection of a 3 dimensional space, so objects in a photo are seen in perspective.
If you stand at the side of a railroad track and look at it at a point where your line of sight makes a 90 degree angle with the rails, the rails, which really are parallel, will appear to be parallel. If you stand in the middle of the track and look down the track, the rails will appear to converge to a single point - the vanishing point- somewhere beyond the horizon.
The same effect occurs with shadows which are parallel to each other. If you look at them from directly overhead, or from a position where your line of sight to the shadows is at a right angle to them, they'll appear to be parallel, but if you look at them from an up-sun position they'll appear to converge toward a vanishing point down-sun from you, while if you look at them from a down-sun position, they'll appear to converge toward a vanishing point up-sun from you.
This photo, taken on fairly level ground on Earth, shows the effect nicely.
It's not hard to do your own experiments using your own surroundings. If you can find a scene like the one in the photo, with a row of upright posts like bollards, light posts, fence posts or suchlike casting shadows on flat ground, try checking whether the shadows are parallel or nearly so by measuring the distance between them at two different distances from the object casting them and then try walking around them and observing how they appear to you from different viewpoints. You don't even need a camera unless you want to make a permanent record of your experiment.
The fact that this effect can be produced unintentionally, on Earth, with natural light and no photographic apparatus at all, serves to demonstrate that it can't be taken as proof of intentional fakery if it's observed in a photograph.
BTW, the page where I found that photograph, http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm , is worth reading if you're interested in Moon Hoax claims and how they fare under knowledgeable scrutiny.
If you stand at the side of a railroad track and look at it at a point where your line of sight makes a 90 degree angle with the rails, the rails, which really are parallel, will appear to be parallel. If you stand in the middle of the track and look down the track, the rails will appear to converge to a single point - the vanishing point- somewhere beyond the horizon.
The same effect occurs with shadows which are parallel to each other. If you look at them from directly overhead, or from a position where your line of sight to the shadows is at a right angle to them, they'll appear to be parallel, but if you look at them from an up-sun position they'll appear to converge toward a vanishing point down-sun from you, while if you look at them from a down-sun position, they'll appear to converge toward a vanishing point up-sun from you.
This photo, taken on fairly level ground on Earth, shows the effect nicely.
It's not hard to do your own experiments using your own surroundings. If you can find a scene like the one in the photo, with a row of upright posts like bollards, light posts, fence posts or suchlike casting shadows on flat ground, try checking whether the shadows are parallel or nearly so by measuring the distance between them at two different distances from the object casting them and then try walking around them and observing how they appear to you from different viewpoints. You don't even need a camera unless you want to make a permanent record of your experiment.
The fact that this effect can be produced unintentionally, on Earth, with natural light and no photographic apparatus at all, serves to demonstrate that it can't be taken as proof of intentional fakery if it's observed in a photograph.
BTW, the page where I found that photograph, http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm , is worth reading if you're interested in Moon Hoax claims and how they fare under knowledgeable scrutiny.
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 21,203
The Earth stays in apporimately the same place in the sky at all times. Due to the liberation because the Moon's orbit isn't a perfect circle, the Earth does move through a figure 8 through the course of an earth month (or lunar day.)
If you were at a point where the Earth is very close to the horizon then it would appear to set and rise as it did so, but the "Earthrise" images were taken from the Apollo CSM as it orbited the moon.
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 21,203
Why are the shadows in these pictuires convergent?
ERichardson said:
Why are the people in this picture illuminated when in the suns shadow?
I'll give you a clue...
qarnos
Cold-hearted skeptic
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2004
- Messages
- 2,084
Belz...
Fiend God
You, sir, are the textbook definition of a troll. You come here, post an OP where you claim to be, more or less, "on the fence", and bring to the table a single element of the Moon Hoax CT, and then you degenerate into open belligerence, rather quickly, and show that you are indeed very far from the fence. Your mind is already made up, and all evidence to the contrary will be "faked" by the evil NASA.
Belz...
Fiend God
Of course. CTers always resort to thinking their opponents lie. It's far easier than to even consider that they may be right.
Pictures, videos, moon rocks, thousands of eyewitnesses to the preparations, people who actually went, scientists from around the globe who would've picked up on a fake landing, etc.
What to YOU have ? A misinterpretation of the belt's radioactivity, of the ship's shielding, of the technology involved, and of pictures.
Let me guess, you're wondering why there aren't any stars in the pictures ?
Belz...
Fiend God
defaultdotxbe said:
ERich said:
Default said:
noted.
noted.Then you understand nothing of radiation, if you think some forms of radiation are lethal, no matter the dose and time factor.
Because those who do disagree with you, even when they'd have good reasons to expose this fraud, were it this obvious.
No need. Here they are:
See ? This is why I don't like conspiracy theorists. None of you seem willing to research this subject. You just look at piktures, say "woah, that's odd" and leave it there.
The shadows were convergent because of the terrain. If you're thinking about two light sources, there should be TWO SHADOWS for each object. There isn't, and such an effect cannot POSSIBLY be avoided.
Reflection, mate.
ETA: Damn all those JREFers and their posting...
Last edited:
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2006
- Messages
- 7,474
the explanation ive been given for the shadows was a single light source, close to the astronauts
but, if any CTer had bothered to think about it for a few seconds, theyd realize this would produce divergent shadows, not convergent
Spindrift
Time Person of the Year, 2006
ER - Now that RMackey has answered your questions, you should be ready to answer ours.
Do you acknowledge that the Apollo astronauts did fly through the Van Allen Belts and survived?
Do you acknowledge that the Apollo astronauts did fly through the Van Allen Belts and survived?
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
I'm late to the game, but I'll chip in with the shadow converging thing...
It's perspective.
Sunlight is parallel, however as we know, the optical illusion of perspective causes parallel lines to converge as they near the horizon (think a straight road). The point where they meet is called the vanishing point.
The problem with a photographic image is it's a 2D representation of 3D space. Depth perception is significantly affected by the focal length of the lens in use, which means determining the relationship of various objects can be difficult. This sort of optical illusion is called "Forced Perspective" or "Foreshortening" and is a primary method of physical effects in the film industry.
How does this relate to our shadows on the moon?
We use the various sizes of familiar objects in a photograph to determine distance, and we use the horizon, because at eye level the horizon on earth is generally the same distance away.
However the rules are different on the moon because it's a different size. In addition, it has no atmosphere, and there are no familiar shapes or objects to use as a starting point.
What might look like a small collection of rocks in one photograph may actually be a mountain range many miles away.
What we DO know is the Apollo II landing occured at Lunar sunrise, because it ensured the surface wouldn't get too hot for them. Just like on earth, at sunrise on the moon the sun is low on the horizon, and thus produces incredibly long shadows.
The longer a set of parallel lines are (say two shadows) the more noticeable their convergence due to perspective will be.
The shadows appear to converge because, cast by a near-horizon sun, they stretch out across vast distances of the lunar surface.
As pointed out, were there multiple light sources there would be multiple shadows.
-Gumboot
It's perspective.
Sunlight is parallel, however as we know, the optical illusion of perspective causes parallel lines to converge as they near the horizon (think a straight road). The point where they meet is called the vanishing point.
The problem with a photographic image is it's a 2D representation of 3D space. Depth perception is significantly affected by the focal length of the lens in use, which means determining the relationship of various objects can be difficult. This sort of optical illusion is called "Forced Perspective" or "Foreshortening" and is a primary method of physical effects in the film industry.
How does this relate to our shadows on the moon?
We use the various sizes of familiar objects in a photograph to determine distance, and we use the horizon, because at eye level the horizon on earth is generally the same distance away.
However the rules are different on the moon because it's a different size. In addition, it has no atmosphere, and there are no familiar shapes or objects to use as a starting point.
What might look like a small collection of rocks in one photograph may actually be a mountain range many miles away.
What we DO know is the Apollo II landing occured at Lunar sunrise, because it ensured the surface wouldn't get too hot for them. Just like on earth, at sunrise on the moon the sun is low on the horizon, and thus produces incredibly long shadows.
The longer a set of parallel lines are (say two shadows) the more noticeable their convergence due to perspective will be.
The shadows appear to converge because, cast by a near-horizon sun, they stretch out across vast distances of the lunar surface.
As pointed out, were there multiple light sources there would be multiple shadows.
-Gumboot
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 21,203
Converging Shadows.
I thought that I'd chime in again too. While I believe that my own Photos prove the point adequately, I have noticed that we have a number of different answers. In a way this isn't strange because unlike what the typical Hoax Believer (HB) expects, there are multiple reasons for the shadows converging, and it really depends on the image to the cause.
1) Perspective: This is the main cause of convergent shadows and most of the effect is explained using this. The first thing that any budding art student is taught is that if you want to represent parrallel lines that you draw them converging towards a vanishing point. I was taught this at 13 when I took my first art class, but I knew it long before, after all, just get a piece of paper and draw a pair of railway tracks that lead to a horizon, do you draw parrallel lines, or do they meet at the horizon? Try it. Now I'll assume that young Mr Richardson has never done any art in his entire life and didn't know this, so is merely parroting what he read on a Hoax Proponent (HP) site. However people that claim to be photographers and analysers can't be forgiven the same fundamental mistake. Thus the only conclusion one can come too is that those that claim such skills but totally ignore the affects of prespective on the photos are nothing but frauds and conmen.
2) Terrain: This plays a large part as well. Look at the photos I posted earlier, you can see the effect the terrain has on the shadow directions, the lamp post in several of the photos actually casts a curved shadow! Terrain also affects the length, as can be seen when comparing Photos 1 & 2 when the apparent shadow lengths switch when the photographer (me) simply moved from one side to the other.
3) Foreshortening: This is a term that describes an effect that most people see everyday, but don't realise. As objects lying on the ground get further away from us, they appear to get shorter. Shadows do this as well. This can cause confusion at looking at a phot be shadows in the distance can be shorter than they "should". Because we are used to looking at long thin shadows, when we see what looks like this sort of shadow for an object that should be casting one, we assume it is, and don't consider that we're really seeing a "short fat" shadow that has suffered from foreshortening.
4) Wideangle Lens: The Apollo cameras used a wide angle lens (not a fisheye lens) and so there is a little affect because of this, though of the four main reasons for the convergance, this one has the least affect of all of them.
Sometimes (in fact often) we can see the effect of more then one of the above effects in one photo, sometimes even on the one shadow in a photo. The trick is to figure that out, and that seems to be something that the conmen HP's do their best to hide from the suckers whom they are busy draining money from, and something that is beyond the limited understanding of the HB suckers themselves.
I thought that I'd chime in again too. While I believe that my own Photos prove the point adequately, I have noticed that we have a number of different answers. In a way this isn't strange because unlike what the typical Hoax Believer (HB) expects, there are multiple reasons for the shadows converging, and it really depends on the image to the cause.
1) Perspective: This is the main cause of convergent shadows and most of the effect is explained using this. The first thing that any budding art student is taught is that if you want to represent parrallel lines that you draw them converging towards a vanishing point. I was taught this at 13 when I took my first art class, but I knew it long before, after all, just get a piece of paper and draw a pair of railway tracks that lead to a horizon, do you draw parrallel lines, or do they meet at the horizon? Try it. Now I'll assume that young Mr Richardson has never done any art in his entire life and didn't know this, so is merely parroting what he read on a Hoax Proponent (HP) site. However people that claim to be photographers and analysers can't be forgiven the same fundamental mistake. Thus the only conclusion one can come too is that those that claim such skills but totally ignore the affects of prespective on the photos are nothing but frauds and conmen.
2) Terrain: This plays a large part as well. Look at the photos I posted earlier, you can see the effect the terrain has on the shadow directions, the lamp post in several of the photos actually casts a curved shadow! Terrain also affects the length, as can be seen when comparing Photos 1 & 2 when the apparent shadow lengths switch when the photographer (me) simply moved from one side to the other.
3) Foreshortening: This is a term that describes an effect that most people see everyday, but don't realise. As objects lying on the ground get further away from us, they appear to get shorter. Shadows do this as well. This can cause confusion at looking at a phot be shadows in the distance can be shorter than they "should". Because we are used to looking at long thin shadows, when we see what looks like this sort of shadow for an object that should be casting one, we assume it is, and don't consider that we're really seeing a "short fat" shadow that has suffered from foreshortening.
4) Wideangle Lens: The Apollo cameras used a wide angle lens (not a fisheye lens) and so there is a little affect because of this, though of the four main reasons for the convergance, this one has the least affect of all of them.
Sometimes (in fact often) we can see the effect of more then one of the above effects in one photo, sometimes even on the one shadow in a photo. The trick is to figure that out, and that seems to be something that the conmen HP's do their best to hide from the suckers whom they are busy draining money from, and something that is beyond the limited understanding of the HB suckers themselves.
Last edited:
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 21,203
I wonder if he knows that is a federal crime since the Rock is the property of the people of the US.
Nah, he's too busy joining in on the 'Debunk This" WTC conspiracy thread right now. As a skeptical innocent, of course.