|
Post by Vincent McConnell on Aug 10, 2011 15:44:36 GMT -4
The Following Thread is primarily for skeptics on the Apollo Missions and the occasional guy with an unmade mind:Multiple Lighting sources is one of the biggest claims offered by Hoaxers when addressing the Apollo Moon Photographs. Examine that photograph VERY carefully. Notice that the chair has several different shadows, all of different depth and size. Subjected to multiple light sources, the chair displays an equal number of shadows. CREDIT TO JAY WINDLEYHowever, we can examine ANY NUMBER of Apollo photographs. This photograph is an official release Apollo 14 photo. And Above is an Apollo 11 photograph. _____________________________________________________ If the moonscapes were lit with multiple light sources, as hoaxers claim, we would see evidence of double shadows. Don't believe me? Well, if the set were lit with only one light source, any dimmer than the sun, we would see evidence of photography fall off. Above is the most widely circulated photograph of the last two centuries. While some poor quality releases show false fall off, this official release from the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal is high-quality, and therefore shows no fall off. It's important to note that a surface will create slight hot spots, as can be seen on an asphalt road in the day. Therefore, false color versions are in-accurate. ____________________________________________________ As for those who claim multiple shadow directions, I leave you with this. Another important point, is that the shadows of the Apollo Moon Photographs are a DEEP black. On Earth, this is NOT possible. The reason? Because of atmospheric scattering, the light will fill the inside of the shadow, in addition to the light from the blue sky. However, on the moon, there is no atmosphere or blue skies. ABOVE IS AN APOLLO 11 PANORAMA, NEARLY 360 DEGREES AROUND. Note deep Black shadows, single direction shadows, absence of multiple light sources, and absence of fall off. Are you really about to allege that NASA set dressers were able to do this for days of footage and hundreds of photographs?? No. Of course they were not able to...
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Aug 10, 2011 18:07:33 GMT -4
However, we can examine ANY NUMBER of Apollo photographs. This photograph is an official release Apollo 17 photo. (LABEL UNKNOWN AT THE MOMENT) Actually, it's an Apollo 14 photograph of Alan Shepard, AS14-66-9232. www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-66-9232HR.jpg
|
|
|
Post by Vincent McConnell on Aug 10, 2011 19:14:15 GMT -4
However, we can examine ANY NUMBER of Apollo photographs. This photograph is an official release Apollo 17 photo. (LABEL UNKNOWN AT THE MOMENT) Actually, it's an Apollo 14 photograph of Alan Shepard, AS14-66-9232. www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-66-9232HR.jpgWoops! Thanks! It has been fixed to say Apollo 14.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Aug 10, 2011 19:34:50 GMT -4
Is the chair your own work Vincent? Good effort if it was. The multiple shadows and peculiar shadow angles has to be the most idiotic of all the hoax claims.
Have a good dig around Clavius (Jay's site) and the photography section. Jay covers many aspects of shadows and lighting in that section. It is a good read.
The one concept that the HBs do not understand is vanishing point. The other issue is the whole spotlight and fall off argument. It is all explained at Clavius.
|
|
|
Post by Vincent McConnell on Aug 10, 2011 19:39:44 GMT -4
Is the chair your own work Vincent? Good effort if it was. The multiple shadows and peculiar shadow angles has to be the most idiotic of all the hoax claims. Have a good dig around Clavius (Jay's site) and the photography section. Jay covers many aspects of shadows and lighting in that section. It is a good read. The one concept that the HBs do not understand is vanishing point. The other issue is the whole spotlight and fall off argument. It is all explained at Clavius. No, I have to give credit to google images for the chair picture. I googled "Multiple shadows". Whoever it was, I would credit them if I knew who they were. Clavius is a place I have yet to really search. In fact, I think I'll go and do that right now.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 10, 2011 19:56:34 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Vincent McConnell on Aug 10, 2011 20:01:30 GMT -4
WOAH! HAHA it's from your website? Ok! Let me credit you!
|
|
|
Post by Vincent McConnell on Aug 10, 2011 20:02:22 GMT -4
The Following Thread is primarily for skeptics on the Apollo Missions and the occasional guy with an unmade mind:Multiple Lighting sources is one of the biggest claims offered by Hoaxers when addressing the Apollo Moon Photographs. Examine that photograph VERY carefully. Notice that the chair has several different shadows, all of different depth and size. Subjected to multiple light sources, the chair displays an equal number of shadows. CREDIT TO JAY WINDLEY OF CLAVIUSHowever, we can examine ANY NUMBER of Apollo photographs. This photograph is an official release Apollo 14 photo. And Above is an Apollo 11 photograph. _____________________________________________________ If the moonscapes were lit with multiple light sources, as hoaxers claim, we would see evidence of double shadows. Don't believe me? Well, if the set were lit with only one light source, any dimmer than the sun, we would see evidence of photography fall off. Above is the most widely circulated photograph of the last two centuries. While some poor quality releases show false fall off, this official release from the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal is high-quality, and therefore shows no fall off. It's important to note that a surface will create slight hot spots, as can be seen on an asphalt road in the day. Therefore, false color versions are in-accurate. ____________________________________________________ As for those who claim multiple shadow directions, I leave you with this. Another important point, is that the shadows of the Apollo Moon Photographs are a DEEP black. On Earth, this is NOT possible. The reason? Because of atmospheric scattering, the light will fill the inside of the shadow, in addition to the light from the blue sky. However, on the moon, there is no atmosphere or blue skies. ABOVE IS AN APOLLO 11 PANORAMA, NEARLY 360 DEGREES AROUND. Note deep Black shadows, single direction shadows, absence of multiple light sources, and absence of fall off. Are you really about to allege that NASA set dressers were able to do this for days of footage and hundreds of photographs?? No. Of course they were not able to...
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 10, 2011 23:57:33 GMT -4
Can we maybe not have such huge images? I don't have any interest in scrolling sideways to look at arguments I've already seen, no matter which side they're on.
|
|
|
Post by Vincent McConnell on Aug 10, 2011 23:59:06 GMT -4
Can we maybe not have such huge images? I don't have any interest in scrolling sideways to look at arguments I've already seen, no matter which side they're on. The images come from google images. I cannot control their size... I notice a severe hostile nature displayed by you. What is your opinion on the Apollo Missions?
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Aug 11, 2011 0:09:04 GMT -4
Actually, the forum rules prohibit very large images, so the request is reasonable.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Aug 11, 2011 1:20:56 GMT -4
The images come from google images. I cannot control their size... You can, however, post a simple text link to the photo in question. For that matter, if it isn't considered "bandwidth theft" to inline-post images from Google's thumbnail cache [determination, LO?], you could post a thumbnailed link, using the following UBB code: [url=http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11pan1093226HR.jpg] [img]http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSUshihiFKoKqfKE9PmS3uaQQGK2lPPy4hYdCjml4VQRBJmIZrE[/img] [/url]
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Aug 11, 2011 6:55:42 GMT -4
The images come from google images. I cannot control their size... I notice a severe hostile nature displayed by you. What is your opinion on the Apollo Missions? It's a VERY reasonable request, and I agree with it. And could you quote the part you found 'severely hostile'?
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Aug 11, 2011 7:06:16 GMT -4
Can we maybe not have such huge images? I don't have any interest in scrolling sideways to look at arguments I've already seen, no matter which side they're on. The images come from google images. I cannot control their size... I notice a severe hostile nature displayed by you. What is your opinion on the Apollo Missions? Actually, inserting 'width= nnn height= nnn' into the opening IMG tag will do it ...
|
|
|
Post by ineluki on Aug 11, 2011 9:12:23 GMT -4
Leaving aside the picture size issue...
I think "skeptics on the Apollo Missions and the occasional guy with an unmade mind" are rather rare around here (also on BAUT, JREF, Unexplained Mysteries, Education Forum...).
Perhaps this would be better addressed to Jarrah and his YT-Followers...
|
|