|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Sept 29, 2009 18:40:20 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Sept 29, 2009 18:59:26 GMT -4
I think we've discussed both of those pictures (or similar ones) in the past.
I don't recall what the answer was for the flag shadow, but it might have something to do with the terrain. If there is a dip in the ground the flag's shadow might not be in view.
I think the ground does look disturbed under the LM in the second photo. What kind of effect did the HB expect? A giant crater?
A higher resolution version of those photographs might help though.
|
|
|
|
Post by HeadLikeARock (was postbaguk) on Sept 29, 2009 19:20:06 GMT -4
 Look at the hi res images on the ALSJ. You can see plenty of evidence of regolith being scoured on many of the missions, Apollo 11 included. It's especially clear on Apollo 14. AS14-66-9261 (crop)  |
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Sept 29, 2009 20:37:23 GMT -4
I think we've discussed both of those pictures (or similar ones) in the past. I don't recall what the answer was for the flag shadow, but it might have something to do with the terrain. If there is a dip in the ground the flag's shadow might not be in view. I think the ground does look disturbed under the LM in the second photo. What kind of effect did the HB expect? A giant crater? A higher resolution version of those photographs might help though. |
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Sept 29, 2009 20:55:46 GMT -4
Thanks postbaguk and laurel. The shadow of the flag itself is out of frame, but the shadow of the pole is there. Perfect example of why the hi-res version is needed.
|
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Sept 29, 2009 23:01:00 GMT -4
Thanks postbaguk and laurel. The shadow of the flag itself is out of frame, but the shadow of the pole is there. Perfect example of why the hi-res version is needed. Also a perfect example of the lack of research on the part of the HBs. |
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Sept 30, 2009 4:24:16 GMT -4
It's not even difficult to work out that the flag's shadow is out of the picture in the small photo.
Just note the shadows of Aldrin's legs -- they aren't close to joining at the groin area of his spacesuit. Where is that area in AS11-40-5875? Other photos show its pretty much level with his relaxed hands. So place a ruler at the far right between his leg shadows, tilt its left side up to his fingers, and coincidentally, the ruler touches the bottom left corner of the flag, which is beyond Aldrin. It's hardly rocket science to work out that, assuming flat ground, which we don't have, the flag's shadow would be just out of the picture.
And looking further afield at maps, other photos and movie frames, while it's not obvious in that photo, we find that the ground dips downward behind Aldrin, lengthening the shadows from the perspective of AS11-40-5875. But most of all, in the 16mm DAC image of Armstrong taking the photo, the bottom of the flag's shadow is roughly level with the shadow of Aldrin's mid-chest area.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Sept 30, 2009 13:29:24 GMT -4
Much thanks to all
|
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Oct 5, 2009 13:34:03 GMT -4
Whoop!! ;D  ;D Another poster stated that he could not see the shadow of the pole. I explained the diff between hi and lo res and illustrated that in the lo-res image the American flag shoulder flash is alos invisible. The reply from the original HB Check out his link. Unfortunately I do not believe he is kidding. |
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Oct 5, 2009 13:50:38 GMT -4
If those people are the smartest on the web, it makes me despair for all the hopes of using it for education.
|
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 5, 2009 16:27:39 GMT -4
Dunning and Kruger were right.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Oct 5, 2009 18:36:40 GMT -4
I read a few posts on that link and couldn't continue on....
|
|
vq
Earth
What time is it again?
Posts: 129
|
Post by vq on Oct 5, 2009 20:46:23 GMT -4
I read a few posts on that link and couldn't continue on.... No kidding. That board was one step above youtube discussions. |
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Oct 5, 2009 23:02:54 GMT -4
I read a few posts on that link and couldn't continue on.... No kidding. That board was one step above youtube discussions. My fav was a poster opining that 'they' did not produce faked pics of the stars because 'they' might get it wrong. After all who knows how the stars would be arranged when viewed from the Moon? priceless |
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Oct 5, 2009 23:08:20 GMT -4
No kidding. That board was one step above youtube discussions. My fav was a poster opining that 'they' did not produce faked pics of the stars because 'they' might get it wrong. After all who knows how the stars would be arranged when viewed from the Moon? priceless Oh that's nothing. Someone on YouTube argued that stars should be much brighter on the moon (and show up on photographs because of that), because the moon is much closer to the stars than Earth. |
|
;D 
