New smoking guns in Apollo moon hoax: White cloth canvas on floor clearly seen!

I made the discrepancy a little more obvious.

reply to post by Ove38


Can you please explain how if light is shining from both east and west, every object in the picture has only one shadow, if there are two light sources everything should have two shadows. I mean it's not that hard of a concept to grasp.

(Why isn't there a face-palm emoticon on here?)

reply to post by MortPenguin


The only discrepancies are your lines.

I said this to another member on here, if you watch a nighttime football match on TV you will notice that the players all have 3 or 4 shadows because of the multiple stadium lights around the arena, what you are suggesting should have a similar effect.

I'm well aware of what multiple lights do. As I wrote the image must have been created from two separate photos. Look at the object beside the LEM to see the direction of the shadow. Then to the east the shadows are horizontal. This is what you need to explain to maintain your faith in this photo. And please don't paste a bunch of other photos showing skewed shadows as it appears to be on the same plane level with the LEM. Can you really make a case that there is angles going on here. If so, show me on the photo where the ground is uneven?

Originally posted by MortPenguin
I'm well aware of what multiple lights do. As I wrote the image must have been created from two separate photos. Look at the object beside the LEM to see the direction of the shadow. Then to the east the shadows are horizontal. This is what you need to explain to maintain your faith in this photo. And please don't paste a bunch of other photos showing skewed shadows as it appears to be on the same plane level with the LEM. Can you really make a case that there is angles going on here. If so, show me on the photo where the ground is uneven?

Ok, well I understand what your point is now. I must have missed what you posted earlier.

Really though, it is just your matter of opinion, I'm not going to post pictures or anything, but I used to take a lot of photographs when I was younger, and I know for sure that on uneven ground with the sun at a low angle you will get photographs with exactly the same characteristics as these moon shots. You may speculate that the picture is a composite if you like but can you prove it? I seriously doubt it, and judging from the fuss made about the other picture and the efforts by exponent to try and demonstrate basic perspective to you I can foresee a long and laborious debate which will lead nowhere because in the end you're seeing something that IMO isn't there.

Good luck with that.

Originally posted by exponent
A fisheye lens was not used, a slightly wide angle lens was, and this is not the cause of the shadows you see, that is perspective and terrain.

The light source is clearly to the left of the photographer in the image below.



The shadows on the right side of the photographer, tells us that there is a light source to the back and to right of of the photographer.

Originally posted by MortPenguin
I'm well aware of what multiple lights do. As I wrote the image must have been created from two separate photos. Look at the object beside the LEM to see the direction of the shadow. Then to the east the shadows are horizontal. This is what you need to explain to maintain your faith in this photo. And please don't paste a bunch of other photos showing skewed shadows as it appears to be on the same plane level with the LEM. Can you really make a case that there is angles going on here. If so, show me on the photo where the ground is uneven?

One thing, with regards to the object beside the LEM, all it takes is for the ground on the far side of the object to have a slight rise in it to throw off which direction the shadow is pointing. I know you know this but the surfaces upon which the shadows are laying are anything but flat, smooth etc. so why even try to calculate the angles?

I mean all of this discussion may have merit if we were dealing with flat surfaces, but we aren't.

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
Can you please explain how if light is shining from both east and west, every object in the picture has only one shadow, if there are two light sources everything should have two shadows. I mean it's not that hard of a concept to grasp.

Your right, but if the light source to the left and to the right are one and the same, what does that tell us about the room the photographer is in ?

reply to post by MortPenguin


If you're going to claim a photo is faked, then you should at least include the photos preceding it to give the context, otherwise you're being highy selective and just taking a percieved anamoly without examining the circumstances.
Here is the sequence of photos leading up to that one, to give the context.


The photo that in your opinion defies all physical possibility...

The description that goes with that photo...

Leftward of 5960. Down-Sun photograph of the LM from the rim of Little West Crater. We can see Neil's shadow and the shadow of the Gold camera. Note that the doors of the SEQ bay are closed. This frame gives us a feeling for elevation of the rim. When he took this picture, Neil was clearly standing above the level of the LM footpads. Note the darkened tracks leading leftward to the EASEP deployment area and rightward to the TV camera. Compare with the LPI traverse map ( 1.32Mb ). Buzz is at the MESA on the far, righthand side of the spacecraft.

And the photo after that, with another small description...

Down-Sun photograph of the LM taken by Neil during his return from the rim of Little West Crater. The split boulder noted on the righhand edge of 5931 is in the foreground in line with the south (minus-Y) footpad. Buzz is still at the MESA.

(info taken from this page... www.hq.nasa.gov...)

Originally posted by Ove38

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
Can you please explain how if light is shining from both east and west, every object in the picture has only one shadow, if there are two light sources everything should have two shadows. I mean it's not that hard of a concept to grasp.

Your right, but if the light source to the left and to the right are one and the same, what does that tell us about the room the photographer is in ?

That the 'room' is the solar system?

Originally posted by Ove38


The shadows on the right side of the photographer, tells us that there is a light source to the back and to right of of the photographer.

Hang on, you're using a stitched together panorama to 'prove' that the sun in one shot is in the same position as the other one? Wouldn't the rotation of the photographer affect that?

Originally posted by delusion

Originally posted by Ove38

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
Can you please explain how if light is shining from both east and west, every object in the picture has only one shadow, if there are two light sources everything should have two shadows. I mean it's not that hard of a concept to grasp.

Your right, but if the light source to the left and to the right are one and the same, what does that tell us about the room the photographer is in ?

That the 'room' is the solar system?

Or a small circular movie studio, with some mountain paintings on the wall, and a photographer with a fisheye camera lens, at the center of the room.

Originally posted by Ove38


Or a small circular movie studio, with some mountain paintings on the wall, and a photographer with a fisheye camera lens.

edit on 1-12-2012 by Ove38 because: text fix

Then where is the fisheye distortion in the panorama you used?

Originally posted by delusion

Originally posted by Ove38


The shadows on the right side of the photographer, tells us that there is a light source to the back and to right of of the photographer.

Hang on, you're using a stitched together panorama to 'prove' that the sun in one shot is in the same position as the other one? Wouldn't the rotation of the photographer affect that?

Only if this is a very smal circular room, I stitched only 4 images together.

Originally posted by Ove38


Only if this is a very smal circular room, I stitched only 4 images together.

Okay, according to you can you estimate how many degrees that covers 180, 60?

I don't quite see how the size of the room would change the fact that he rotates.

(edit.. what are the numbers of those photos?)

Originally posted by delusion
Okay, according to you can you estimate how many degrees that covers 180, 60?

it's 24 meters from one end of this image to the other end of the image

reply to post by Ove38


Why is the horizon not fisheye distorted?

edit.

What is your opinion of this? Please be specific. (Scroll right.)

Originally posted by delusion
reply to post by Ove38

 

Why is the horizon not fisheye distorted?

The mountains are negative fisheye painting

Originally posted by Ove38

Originally posted by delusion
reply to post by Ove38

 

Why is the horizon not fisheye distorted?

The mountains are negative fisheye painting

This is the most hilarious post I've seen on here in some time. Do you realise that a fisheye is a type of lens? The sort of distortion you're talking about it is not possible to cancel out with a backdrop. It would be like trying to fool someone into thinking you were very small by standing 40 feet away. Any change in view or perspective would expose the truth.

In the Apollo images, they cover quite a large distance and perspective distortions are visible.

Face it, a real world recreation has been posted that's identical, people have explained that you're taking many photos from a panorama and I have explained how shadow conformity works and the lens type and length used. Stop being ignorant and read the information provided.

Originally posted by MortPenguin
I made the discrepancy a little more obvious.

There is no discrepancy visible. As I illustrated, terrain changes the direction of a shadow. Shadows only converge on an identical point when they are projected onto a flat plane.

All you've demonstrated is that the terrain at each section is different, but we can see that with our naked eyes without having to draw in lines.

When you have to call random photos culled from the internet fake then it's a sure bet you don't understand how to analyse these photos properly.