It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# What is wrong with the Apollo 12 SUN? (Warning to dialup users: large images)

page: 6
11
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 10:23 PM
Perspective allows an artist to control the illusion of depth in an image with space ranging from a few inches to many miles. Linear and atmospheric perspective must be used together to make the illusion effectively.

Both systems of perspective describe how objects appear in relation to their distance from the observer. This is not so much science as a means of describing, and by interpretation of illustrating, objects in space.

Objects that are placed parallel to one another use the same vanishing points. Objects set at different angles each have their own vanishing points.

There are two basic systems of linear perspective: one-point and two-point named after the number of vanishing points used in each.

All parallel lines follow the same rules. If one goes to a vanishing point then all like lines go to the same vanishing point. In most systems vertical lines are drawn vertical (not in three-point perspective).

Link below to illustration of multiple vanishing points!

The station point represents the eye of the observer. It is the camera in a photograph.

The picture plane is the "window" that is represented by the picture.

The ground line is a line that is parallel to the picture plane at the base of the object being depicted.

To drive the Point home
The image with vanishing point in the sun is wrong . As a vanishing point ends on the horizon, and by the way theres more than 1 in your pic, which explains different shadow angles in you panoramic. No spot lights. We went there.
DEBUNKED!
Next!

[edit on 23-6-2007 by harry20007]

posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 10:42 PM
I agree completely with IAttackPeople pics. with regard to the shadow angle. The problem as I see it is that the ratio of the distance from moon to sun versus the distance between the objects casting the shadows is HUGE - therefore all shadows cast should, as far as the eye is concerned, be parallel and point in exactly the same direction - this does not happen in the NASA photos.

The CAD images give no indication as to what the ratio used is but I'm sure if it was as described above, the shadows drawn would all point in the same direction.

posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 10:59 PM
Im going after purely what this guy is using to state his case. he quotes those images with circles and green lines really going no where. He invokes perspective and one point vanishing . Ive just proved shadows at different angles are achieved with multiple vanishing points from one light source. This is basic. Google perspective and types of perspective and look at his argument, you'll see hes barking up the wrong tree. The shadows if also on an incline /decline away from light source will also be shorter or longer these are different planes.. We have to no sizes of the rocks causing shadows, the lay of the land to get a clearer pic. But just looking at it most artists would tell you that theres nothing wrong, they use perspective alot.

On the same plane shadows will be parallel yes i agree but we are not looking at a flat plane. The lens plus photographers compensation of angle has done this. the only clue is the way the angles of the shadows sometimes vary.

A simple experiment. Hold an a4 sheet horizontally (your flat plane). Place a pencil on it and stand in fron of a single light source. Now tilt paper left or right slowly, keepeing the pencil at right angles to the paper. Watch the angle change as it creates a new perspective line. Its highly unreliable to use shadows in rough uneven terrain to point towards light source as multiple vanishing points break this so called rule. Now add a 70mm lense ( which in photography does distort the foreground (great for portraits). Depth of field is long so f/stops are taken down, shutter speeds are slower. Theres a huge amouint of compensating going on to give a look of level surface. Now add an astronaut try to keep his visual horizon level and bingo you get this great pic.

Originally posted by omelette
I agree completely with IAttackPeople pics. with regard to the shadow angle. The problem as I see it is that the ratio of the distance from moon to sun versus the distance between the objects casting the shadows is HUGE - therefore all shadows cast should, as far as the eye is concerned, be parallel and point in exactly the same direction - this does not happen in the NASA photos.

The CAD images give no indication as to what the ratio used is but I'm sure if it was as described above, the shadows drawn would all point in the same direction.

[edit on 23-6-2007 by harry20007]

posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 11:38 PM

Originally posted by omelette
I agree completely with IAttackPeople pics. with regard to the shadow angle. The problem as I see it is that the ratio of the distance from moon to sun versus the distance between the objects casting the shadows is HUGE - therefore all shadows cast should, as far as the eye is concerned, be parallel and point in exactly the same direction - this does not happen in the NASA photos.

If you viewed the moon photo from directly over the scene you would see that the shadows would indeed fall in the same direction. Here's the same "distant light" scene from above rendered with the camera directly over the shadows...

Indeed we see parallel shadows. How the shadows appear to *you* is all a matter of perspective. For the record, the poles are 4 units apart and the lightsource is 10 million units distant.

Add the fact that the moon surface is not flat to viewer perspective and you can get what *seem* to be unnatural shadow lines.

[edit on 23-6-2007 by IAttackPeople]

posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 11:47 PM
I guess thats it for the shadow, cross hair, contrast theories .
IAttackPeople has just sumed it up beautifully. Well done! Hopefully This should put this to bed.

posted on Jun, 24 2007 @ 12:11 AM
The Apollo missions were faked.
Anyone care to replicate this image using only the sun?
See anything wrong here?

posted on Jun, 24 2007 @ 01:12 AM
Nope, State your case and lets see. Shadow problems by any chance?

Ok
1. shooting into a depression or crater.
2. Perspective perception previously discussed do handle this quite easily.
3. The shadows show the curve of the crater quite clearly by pointing inwards as we follow each rocks shadow.
4. The image is cropped.

Just perspective in action.

Nothing new picture is fine. remember hes shooting into a crater. Shadows on angled curved surface do not always reflect sun position. The curvature of the crater distorts the shadow angle in relation to sun. My A4 pencil and one light source experiment still hold with this.

I would be more curious at the odd shape the rock is at the top right , which I guess is the itch you cant scratch. The shape is unusual. Its too smooth for my liking unlike the broken debris from the impact littered around the crater. It just seems to be different, i think it caught the astronauts eye too
. Im tired its my mind playing tricks I guess

[edit on 24-6-2007 by harry20007]

posted on Jun, 24 2007 @ 02:25 AM
Check the "An End to The Moon Conspiracy" thread, on "Space Exploration" forum...if you haven't already.

There is no point in explaining over and over again.

I KNOW that the pictures are fake. I also KNOW that there are a number of people out there who KNOW it too. It is not hard to understand that, but it is VERY HARD to change your understanding of the world, which comes as a consequence of accepting your and similar analysis.

Some people are not capable to do that, and I completely understand that.

posted on Jun, 24 2007 @ 06:00 AM

Originally posted by swimmer
Check the "An End to The Moon Conspiracy" thread, on "Space Exploration" forum...if you haven't already.

There is no point in explaining over and over again.

Yeah what amazes me is that the people ‘debunking’ my claims still don’t understand them…

Because the shadows are parallel, and the panorama is made up of many different photographs, there should be no ‘general convergence’ into the source of light. The panorama was not taken as one huge photograph. Each photo has its own vanishing point and plane of perspective. So each photo should have the shadows interpreted differently if it were indeed a daylight scene.

Instead we get this general linear convergence of all the shadows, regardless of the slope of the land, into the light source. This conclusively proves that the shadows being photographed were not parallel.

If people are too stupid to even understand this basic impossibility, then why are they arguing with me?

There’s a lot of excusism going on here and not a lot of actual thinking. But I suppose that’s pretty typical of people who have not yet mustered the will power, or simply lack the intelligence, to do a proper objective review of all the moon hoax claims, and all the anomalies, and come to an unbiased conclusion.

posted on Jun, 24 2007 @ 06:57 AM

Originally posted by harry20007
Nope, State your case and lets see. Shadow problems by any chance?

Ok
1. shooting into a depression or crater.
2. Perspective perception previously discussed do handle this quite easily.
3. The shadows show the curve of the crater quite clearly by pointing inwards as we follow each rocks shadow.
4. The image is cropped.

Just perspective in action.

OK, Please feel free to to replicate this to support your claims.

1. Hardly a crater more of a gentle depression.
2. Pespective? we're talking about a near 90 degree differnence in shadow direction all within a very localized area.
3. Again what crater? You see little visible distortion in the astronaughts shadow direction as it extends into the so called "crater".
4. I'm not sure what relevence cropping of the image (if it has been) has to do with anything.

The main problem with the pic are the shadow angles especially the large rock in the top right, glad you noticed it. The small rock at the bottom left seems to be casting two shadows as well as the hotspot around the top of the astronaughts shadow caused from artificial lighting.
But hey shadows are just one of the many many problems with the whole apollo project. But we're just talking about the sun here.

By the way your pencil and light test is flawed as is the examples on the bad astronomy sight. Why? because your trying to debunk artificial lighting effects by using artificial lighting. How does that make sense?
Go outside and look, yes shadows are altered by terrain and perspective but not to the degree we see in the apollo photos.

Apollo Moon Hoax? Sun or Spotlight?

[edit on 24-6-2007 by squiz]

posted on Jun, 24 2007 @ 08:15 AM

Originally posted by harry20007
4. The image is cropped.

How many times do I have to tell you?

Each photo contains 5 by 5 crosshairs. Thats 25 in total.

Count them and see. Those crosshairs were built into the camera. These photographs are not cropped.

posted on Jun, 24 2007 @ 08:31 AM
Hi Yandos, I don't think I really understand what you are trying to say.

If I take a photo of a pole and it's shadow and the sun is directly ahead of me then the shadow with be vertical in my photo. however if I take a photo with the sun to my right then the shadow will point off to the left and be horizontal across my photo.

The shadow is always going to point away from the light source irrespective of any perspective.

posted on Jun, 24 2007 @ 08:53 AM

Originally posted by flurfl
Hi Yandos, I don't think I really understand what you are trying to say.

If I take a photo of a pole and it's shadow and the sun is directly ahead of me then the shadow with be vertical in my photo. however if I take a photo with the sun to my right then the shadow will point off to the left and be horizontal across my photo.

The shadow is always going to point away from the light source irrespective of any perspective.

Correct. And if you have many polls and line them up and take a photo with the sun behind them, their shadows will converge, as dictated by perspective. Now if you take a photo of those poles with the sun to your right, the shadows should not converge, because they are actually parallel shadows. The convergence in the first photo was simply due to perspective.

I might be able to make a panorama with my camera to test this during the day. Although my camera has quite a wide angle lens, so I'll need to crop off the edges for the panorama to glue together.

The point is: with the panorama, the shadows across the entire panorama clearly converge into the light source despite the fact that these shadows are supposed to be parallel. This surely cannot be blamed on perspective as each photo making up the panorama has its own plane of perspective and vanishing point.

posted on Jun, 24 2007 @ 09:16 AM
if i recall they used " Hasselblad " cameras on the moon mission , and the manufacturer him self is pretty supriced with these findings of crosshairs being behind objects and the lightning in the photos ,

i think he siad something in the lines of:
_ its not sepposed to do that

i think it sais it all about the moon landing

if the manufacturer of the camera cant explain the photos his camera made
then they are manufactured

its a just bundel of hoaxes , piled of for your entertainment ,
like circus and beer ,

the real war lies behind the asteroid belt

posted on Jun, 24 2007 @ 09:23 AM

Originally posted by Yandros

Originally posted by harry20007
4. The image is cropped.

How many times do I have to tell you?

Each photo contains 5 by 5 crosshairs. Thats 25 in total.

Count them and see. Those crosshairs were built into the camera. These photographs are not cropped.

Hmmm do I detect petulance. Just to set you straight you never told me , must be someone else OK , now breath, be calm put on your logic hat and continue .

Look at image below and tell me whats wrong?

I cant change what you believe and we all have the right to. Thats your religion. When you can scientifically backup your wayward statements them you lose the public. A few of us have tried explain to you a few basic rules of light/shade/contrast ect., If your world and beliefe system needs to believe (blindly) in what youre saying then fine. But dont forget, I and many others work in this field. Ive had 25 years in it and many have more or less. We deal with every variable in lighting objects. We understand the simple rules of nature. Common sense demands this too. So many of your theories have been debunked time and time again but you just can see th wood for the trees.
Your cross hair theory Debunked or may I say SLAM DUNKED!
The shadows at different angles , I think we did a somersault befor SLAM DUNKING that unfortunate theory.

To the guy /lady whom sent the latest image of rock shadows. The 45 degree angled shadow you gleefully point at lolol. You do realise the shadow stretches around and under the back of the rock too. Are you just seeing what you want to see. Yes the angles vary THATS NATURAL, if understand whats going on.

posted on Jun, 24 2007 @ 09:30 AM

Originally posted by harry20007
Look at image below and tell me whats wrong?

Ah, well perhaps you are correct then. That does seem to be the natural way of it.

That photograph hasn't been cropped has it?

[edit on 24-6-2007 by Yandros]

posted on Jun, 24 2007 @ 09:41 AM
I cant say but would that make a difference on perfectly flat terrain?

posted on Jun, 24 2007 @ 09:50 AM
any idea wha camera they used on that mission ,

at hasselblads homepage you can get some info ,

still you can be right you can be wrong ,

the manufacturer him self stated that his cameras do not leave out the crosshairs ,

its just bad chopping and editing at the time ,

they did not do their work properly

im just supriced the astronauts make it out there with out any shielding from radiation ...

posted on Jun, 24 2007 @ 09:59 AM

Originally posted by harry20007
I cant say but would that make a difference on perfectly flat terrain?

I don't think so.

You are perfectly correct. I was wrong. The convergence in that panorama is natural and as to be expected. It should have occurred to me to treat the shadows as long objects in parallel. Two point perspective is the reason they act as they do, as you rightly pointed out.

Thank you for correcting me; and good job debunking this.

posted on Jun, 24 2007 @ 10:08 AM
That crosshair issue has been debunked so many times I've lost count. The crosshairs dont disappear anywhere, they're there if you look in the originals, not just very visible. The images online where they dont appear are either low quality versions or photoshop hoaxes.

top topics

11