Astronaut shadows in Apollo 11 pictures

So I've always been very much on the fence as to whether or not the Apollo 11 landing, as viewed by the public, was an elaborate hoax. There's no doubt in my mind that we have since been to the moon. And part of me even believes that we did land on the moon when we said we did, but that the live broadcast of the moon landing was faked, simply as a safety protocol in the event that what the astronauts saw on the actual lunar surface was too shocking to share with the general public.

That being said, there is one photograph that I have yet to wrap my brain around. Those debunkers out there who trust in the validity of the publicly distributed Apollo 11 photos and videos, here is your chance to prove it to a skeptic.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/605d17d449b5.png[/atsimg]

How is it that the sun, which creates equal, parallel rays of light given its size and distance from the Earth and Moon, can cast two greatly different sized shadows?

Normally, to get two different size shadows from objects of the same size, it requires the source light to hit each subject at a different angle. For example, imagine that, here on Earth, two people stand 10 feet apart at the same time of day. Assuming they are the same height, their shadows will be equal in length. If you took the same two people, put them in a dark room, and shined a spotlight on them, the two people would have different size shadows because the source light hits each subject at a different angle. Here is an image to illustrate my point:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/45f664465dd9.jpg[/atsimg]

Now what's strange about this is that the subject closer to the source light should have a shorter shadow than the subject that is further away (as we see in the above image). The opposite effect is happening in the Apollo photo. So what gives? It seems like there are different angles of light - implying an artificial, non-solar source - but they are defying the normal laws of physics.

Is there a logical explanation that I'm missing?

Vary nice. This, to me, is further proof that something is up. I hope someone with "Mad Skillz" can come in here and verify the oddness of this.

No ,I don't think there is.

But I'd like to get Neil Armstrong in a room and ask him about a 1000 questions.

Every time this subjet comes up, it is almost as a bigger dilema than 9/11.

It's just one of those hot potato' that won't go away.

I like these types of threads, because it has conspiracy written all over it.

Mr NASA someday will tell us the TRUTH..........Hmmmmmm

It appears both astronauts are not standing perpendicular to the ground like the lighters. This would explain the shadow length differnece.

Well.. for one, the astronauts arenot standing straight up. One is at a slight angle.

Also, here's an example from a poster from the BAUT forums by the name of Sticks that show that the idea of paralell shadows is false.

Link to thread, where he also has a couple of videos.

Now, hopefully someone will come through shortly who can give you a good explanation. I'm more of a dirt head myself.

[edit on 16-3-2010 by RuneSpider]

The hill would stop the shadows, making the one closer seem to have a shorter shadow.
You can see by the light on the hill, the existance of the hill...otherwise its a forgivable misperception.

I too, believe we have gone to the moon. But I too, think that it was entirely too big of a gamble to broadcast it live! No way our government would have done this. We were in a space race with the USSR, and we were touting advanced technologies, and there was far too much to lose if something went wrong. We don't even broadcast sporting events or Presidential speeches without several seconds of delay in case we need to cut or bleep something.

The shadows are very interesting. As for the "different angles" the one shadow is more than double the length, so the one astronaut would need to be almost lying down compared to the other. There is also an odd shadow on one of their shoulders that does not seem to fit the single light source.

As devil's advocate, maybe there was a second light source on the landing module and aimed at the astronauts? I would assume they brought some artificial lighting in case they needed it?

Originally posted by RuneSpider
Well.. for one, the astronauts arenot standing straight up. One is at a slight angle.

Also, here's an example from a poster from the BAUT forums by the name of Sticks that show that the idea of paralell shadows is false.

Link to thread, where he also has a couple of videos.

Now, hopefully someone will come through shortly who can give you a good explanation. I'm more of a dirt head myself.

[edit on 16-3-2010 by RuneSpider]

I'm not so much concerned with the shadows being parallel, but more so with the length of each shadow. Interesting information, nonetheless. Thanks!

Originally posted by earthdude
It appears both astronauts are not standing perpendicular to the ground like the lighters. This would explain the shadow length differnece.

Your post inspired me to do another little household experiment with my two lighters. From the looks of the picture, it's possible that the two astronauts are standing on a bit of a hill. If the subject in the foreground is standing at a higher elevation, the shadow "appears" to be longer as it stretches across the downward sloping surface to the other subject. See this image (and pardon my lack of scientific equipment, I'm just using what's available at my desk):

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/03f17462850e.jpg[/atsimg]

Although given the narrow composition of the Apollo image, it's very difficult to discern which astronaut is standing at a higher elevation - if at all.

With regard to them standing at angles (i.e. not perpendicular to the surface), it looks as if they are both leaning forward. In either case, this would shorten their shadows more so than if they were standing upright. I suppose it is possible that the one with the shorter shadow is leaning over more, but it's very difficult to tell from the picture.

Either way, thanks for the good input!

reply to post by paradigm619

The terrain is not level. Any unevenness changes shadow lengths. It's not easy to see in the images but I have seen stereo views assembled from different images and was surprised at how irregular the area really is.
This image gives an idea of the slopes around the area of the flag. It can be seen that on the side opposite the LM there is a general downslope and then an upslope.
history.nasa.gov...

reply to post by paradigm619


Good!

I am glad you did that, and posted so quickly. See? You solved it yourself.

Of course, the majority of us already knew this answer, but, alas, it seems this same "question" (or others like it) keep cropping up every so often, usually in waves....

Makes me wonder which latest Internet fraud "The Moon Landings Were Hoaxed!!!" nutcase has recently updated their website, or posted some other crackpot idea....

Interesting but any decent photographer knows to use additional lighting and there are pictures of the lighting equipment used on the Appollo mission on the internet.

reply to post by 12.21.12


No. There. Are. Not.

Swooping in, and making such a claim? Without examples? What is that called, again?

reply to post by weedwhacker


Sometimes all it takes is a little bit of discussion to provoke the right ideas. I wish more people would approach conspiracies this way. Clinging to opinions just because they are opinions is a problem that plagues ATS. I'm not adverse to eating my own words!

On the subject of lighting, one should point out that although multiple light sources could be a reason for non-parallel shadows, they also would produce more than one shadow for an object exposed to them.

I emailed Bart Sibrel about this once and got no answer.

I'm not against raising questions about what NASA does, but as far as I know Sibrel hasn't addressed the issue of multiple shadows (the lack of them) in scenes that he suggests or asserts were lit by multiple light sources.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Well I can think of two right off the top of my head, the sun and the earth. There are also different reflection techniques and additional backlighting that can be used.

reply to post by paradigm619


Don't get me wrong. NASA has released hundreds of photos from the Apollo mission that were manipulated. Not because of some conspiracy to fake a moon landing. But to conceal evidence of what they actually found. Ancient structures.

Richard Hoagland has analyzed most of these photos and never one time disputes that photos were not mainpulated for the purpose of fakery, but to conceal what they found.

reply to post by 12.21.12


I've seen a LOT of sources that make these kind of claims, but I've yet to see anything that resembles "irrefutable" evidence of this. People try to increase gamma or contrast on pictures to make these points, but they are starting with heavily compressed JPG images that have an innate tendency to create hard artificial-looking edges and artifacts.

I've viewed the surface of the moon on many ocassions with a high-powered telescope, and nothing resembling more than rocks or craters can be seen. Mind you, this is not proof that structures DON'T exist, but considering there is no true proof that they DO, it's more logical to assume they are not be there.

I'm always interested in a good conspiracy, but there's nothing I've seen so far to lead me to believe that there are any kind of structures on the lunar surface.

reply to post by paradigm619


There was a thread on here a year or two ago that had leaked Apollo mission photos and videos with commentary from the original source of information, but I am having trouble remembering the name of the thread. Try doing a search, maybe one of those threads could change your mind.