|
Post by Kiwi on Mar 24, 2010 2:23:59 GMT -4
I am reading Clavius and my photography issues are being answered quite nicely! I am going to go over the the whole site then watch those films again and see if they make the same impression. Don't miss, before you view the films, Count Zero's analysis of weather patterns in the sticky thread at the top of this section: The Smoking Gun of Bart's "Smoking Gun" Footage. You really only need to study the first post, but may find the remainder of the long thread interesting. And this thread Apollo 11: Transcription of TV transmissions gives other useful information that Bart Sibrel leaves out of his film because it doesn't help his argument. He claims that his footage was "secret," yet it and more went out on the American networks about two hours after it was recorded.
|
|
|
Post by capricorn1 on Mar 24, 2010 4:31:55 GMT -4
Jay, I just found a stunning piece of info on your site that I think you could further elaborate on a little and then add to the Terrain and Shadows page. ...(currently on one of the individual photo pages only).
"Objects will only cast parallel shadows if they themselves are parallel along the line of illumination."
Now when rewatching A funny thing HOTWTTM - I noticed the argument they make about converging shadows and it now becomes nonsense. Surely if the light source is closer the shadows would diverge?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 24, 2010 5:06:37 GMT -4
Objects will only cast parallel shadows if they themselves are parallel along the line of illumination. This is only true if the light source is close by. When talking about the sun, the rays are parallel enough shadows viewed from above will be parallel.
|
|
|
Post by capricorn1 on Mar 24, 2010 6:06:53 GMT -4
This is only true if the light source is close by. [/quote] Exactly my point, isn't the contention that this was filmed in a studio?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Mar 24, 2010 8:37:25 GMT -4
Objects will only cast parallel shadows if they themselves are parallel along the line of illumination. This is only true if the light source is close by. When talking about the sun, the rays are parallel enough shadows viewed from above will be parallel. I agree with the first statement even in the case of the Sun. Say we have two poles stuck in the ground. One is standing vertical and the other is leaning to the side across the line of sunlight. These poles will not cast parallel shadows. When view from above, the shadow of the vertical pole will fall along the line of illumination, but the shadow of the other pole will angle across the line of illumination.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Mar 24, 2010 8:43:41 GMT -4
I think Capricorn One gets an unnecesarily bad press here. Sure it isn't a great movie, but it is an enjoyable way to spend a couple hours, and the plane-hiring scene between Elliott Gould and Telly Savalas is worth price of admission all by itself. All that said ... there is nothing in there that makes me think the moon landings might have been hoaxed. If we are going to start making an issue of members' screen names now, how long before someone takes me to task because the Mr Gorsky story is a urban myth?
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Mar 24, 2010 8:53:37 GMT -4
The parallel shadow contention of the HBs gets even further muddled when they fail to differentiate between the shadows and photos of the shadows. Images of parallel shadows will only be parallel under extremely limited circumstances. BS et. al. don't care to make the fine distinctions between the image and the scene because clarity of fact actually muddies up their lies.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 24, 2010 17:11:34 GMT -4
This is only true if the light source is close by. When talking about the sun, the rays are parallel enough shadows viewed from above will be parallel. I agree with the first statement even in the case of the Sun. Say we have two poles stuck in the ground. One is standing vertical and the other is leaning to the side across the line of sunlight. These poles will not cast parallel shadows. When view from above, the shadow of the vertical pole will fall along the line of illumination, but the shadow of the other pole will angle across the line of illumination. This is true, I was assuming that all objects were perpendicular to the ground. I have actually encopuntered HBs who couldn't understand why the shadows of the Landing Struts, the bent landing probe, and the Astronaut were all at different angles.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 24, 2010 17:13:47 GMT -4
I think Capricorn One gets an unnecesarily bad press here. Sure it isn't a great movie, but it is an enjoyable way to spend a couple hours, and the plane-hiring scene between Elliott Gould and Telly Savalas is worth price of admission all by itself. All that said ... there is nothing in there that makes me think the moon landings might have been hoaxed. If we are going to start making an issue of members' screen names now, how long before someone takes me to task because the Mr Gorsky story is a urban myth? I'm sorry but anything you say is irrelevant because your screen name is an urban myth and you used "a" before a word starting with a vowel.
|
|
|
Post by drewid on Mar 25, 2010 2:57:57 GMT -4
Jay, I just found a stunning piece of info on your site that I think you could further elaborate on a little and then add to the Terrain and Shadows page. ...(currently on one of the individual photo pages only). "Objects will only cast parallel shadows if they themselves are parallel along the line of illumination." Now when rewatching A funny thing HOTWTTM - I noticed the argument they make about converging shadows and it now becomes nonsense. Surely if the light source is closer the shadows would diverge? Shadows being parallel depends on the observers viewpoint as well. e.g. this Youtube link A closer lightsource might be pursuaded to cast shadows that are parallel from a particular point, and could be shown with careful positioning and elevation of the camera. However we're used to gauging surfaces unconsciously from cues like this. I would contend that the shadows would probably look wierd and wrong if there was too much parallel stuff going on.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 25, 2010 12:34:29 GMT -4
Now when rewatching A funny thing HOTWTTM - I noticed the argument they make...There's really no "they." It's just Bart Sibrel. Notice how there's no original footage. AFTH is mostly stock footage that Sibrel got essentially royalty-free from NASA, with some motion photography that he did himself. He claims it cost between $500,000 and $1 million to make, but that's just laughable. ...about converging shadows and it now becomes nonsense.Indeed. Sibrel likes to style himself as an expert filmmaker, and therefore a competent lighting designer. He really knows nothing about light. Surely if the light source is closer the shadows would diverge?Yes, although it has to be very close. I had something specific in mind when I wrote the statement you quote, and perhaps I should make sure that context comes through. Hoax theorists are fond of grabbing any two random shadows and telling us they should appear parallel because sunlight rays are parallel. Perspective aside, that's still only true if the casters are parallel. That is, two well-erected telephone poles would cast shadows on flat ground in sunlight that would seem parallel when seen from directly above. That's because the poles themselves are parallel. What if they weren't? Toward the end of the Apollo 11 EVA Neil Armstrong took an unauthorized hike out to Little West crater over which he had flown during final approach. What he photographed inside the crater turned out to be a significant discovery, so nothing was mentioned of his venturing outside the plan. But from the rim of Little West he photographed a "locator" back to the LM (i.e., simply photographed the LM from his vantage point to provide a distance and direction reference) that included his shadow and that of a piece of equipment -- the Gold camera. Hoax believers are fond of pointing out how badly these shadows converge, but they fail to note the angle of the equipment itself. Armstrong set the Gold camera on the ground next to him with the handle tilted toward him and forward. This produces, naturally, a shadow that isn't expected to be consistent with Armstrong's. Now back to the notion of actual divergence: yes, if the light source isn't the sun and is instead some other nearby source, then parallel objects such as telephone poles will produce shadows on flat level surface that when seen from directly above appear to diverge. Perspective will still make them appear to converge when seen from ground level, although not as much. How much is a matter of computation in each specific case. You can get the lights surprisingly close before the difference in shadows becomes apparent on film.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Mar 25, 2010 12:39:08 GMT -4
I even saw one HB complain it was suspicious that the shadows of Al Bean's legs in an Apollo 12 photo converged! The fact that Bean's legs themselves converged seemed to be completely lost on him....
|
|
|
Post by banjomd on Mar 25, 2010 16:14:39 GMT -4
... The fact that Bean's legs themselves converged seemed to be completely lost on him.... Touche'
|
|
|
Post by capricorn1 on Mar 25, 2010 16:26:20 GMT -4
Quick question on the Lunar Rovers. One of the films shows the rover going round and the comments on the 'rooster tails' heard on dialogue. The contention is that this is THE thing that shows an atmosphere since the dust hits something that can only be a wall of air and falls to the ground. I kind of see what he means, but am not sure....what do you guys think?
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Mar 25, 2010 16:45:55 GMT -4
Absolute nonsense. The dust falls back to the ground because they are pulled down to it by this thing called gravity.
|
|