|
|
Post by lordoftherings on Nov 18, 2005 17:40:26 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by Moon Man on Nov 18, 2005 17:54:35 GMT -4
There are lots of strange shadow angles in th is pic. Look at how smoothly the surface of the moon runs into the mountain. Look at how wide the steps are between footprints, 3 feet at least. Show me video of any astronaut who was taking stides this large..?
|
|
|
|
Post by Fnord Fred on Nov 18, 2005 18:00:29 GMT -4
There are lots of strange shadow angles in th is pic. Look at how smoothly the surface of the moon runs into the mountain. Look at how wide the steps are between footprints, 3 feet at least. Show me video of any astronaut who was taking stides this large..? Ummm... You do know the astronauts mostly hopped, right? Regarding the origional question: I think you're going to need another picture of the same mountain from a different perspective. Either that, or some reference numbers regarding the mountain and the location of the Astronaut that took the picture, like lat/longitude numbers. But I doubt you'll find those. Maybe there's something I missed. I'm sure one of the other guys here will find it. |
|
|
|
Post by Moon Man on Nov 18, 2005 18:05:28 GMT -4
The pic is of the mountain yet they always throw in some footprints for good measure. They may've hopped at times but not always, as evidenced by several other pictures and video. Look at every rock and you see different shadow angles.
|
|
|
|
Post by lordoftherings on Nov 18, 2005 18:11:49 GMT -4
I am interested on knowing the distance between the photographer and the mountain because NASA claims that thee is a ridge line infront of the photographer that hides the land between him and the mountain. However, here, there is no ridge line. As you said Moon Man, the land merges with the mountain.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fnord Fred on Nov 18, 2005 18:12:18 GMT -4
The pic is of the mountain yet they always throw in some footprints for good measure. And? It's an exploration mission, they're exploring. How exactly is that suspicious? Which is why I said mostly. As in, the majority of the time, but not all the time. Thus the big clusterf**k of prints in one corner and the much longer strides towards the left. That's actually not that uncommon. It happens rather frequently in photography on earth as well, even when the sun is the primary light source. www.Clavius.org has an excellent photography section with a much more articulate explanation for divergent shadow angles than I could come up with. |
|
JMV
Venus
Posts: 41 
|
Post by JMV on Nov 18, 2005 18:17:10 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Nov 18, 2005 18:24:00 GMT -4
The deception of distance was greatly pointed out in "Magnificent Desolation" with the Statue of Liberty overlaid on Hadley Rille. Also, they dont show any footprints in any of the Standup EVA pictures.
|
|
|
|
Post by lordoftherings on Nov 18, 2005 18:24:17 GMT -4
If this is true, then how come the groung merges smoothly with the mountain?
Please be honest with yourselves. All NASA argument against Sam Colby's site is that the LM is Far away, Kilometers away, from the background mountains but doesn't seem so to the viewer because of the ridgeline that hides the ground. They argue that the black line is the ridge line and not a line penciled.
I find it very difficult to believe that there is a ridgeline in this photo. I am sure many people share me my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by lordoftherings on Nov 18, 2005 18:25:58 GMT -4
Didn't get your point of ""Magnificent Desolation" with the Statue of Liberty overlaid on Hadley Rille", dwight.
|
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Nov 18, 2005 18:30:29 GMT -4
I find it very difficult to believe that there is a ridgeline in this photo. I am sure many people share me my opinion
I don"t have trouble. On the A14 EVA to Cone Crater the Astros continually appear and disappear behind surfaces which appear to be flat. One thing I do notice is the characteristics of distant objects when the video zooms in on them. They enlarge in a rate consistant to that with objects that are at a great distance. That is a hard thing to describe, but I could demo it with a standard video camera, some distant mountains, midground and foreground objects. With haze, the effect will, however, be harder to see.
|
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Nov 18, 2005 18:32:54 GMT -4
Didn't get your point of ""Magnificent Desolation" with the Statue of Liberty overlaid on Hadley Rille", dwight
Ah sorry,
Magnificent Desolation is the new Imax film which documents the Apollo missions. There is a sequence where Hadley Rille (the canyon-like feature at the A15 landing site) is compared to the statue of liberty. The statue is composited into the frame as a reference point.
|
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Nov 18, 2005 18:34:08 GMT -4
"Help me get all the information I'm too lazy to Google for so I can make a lame and illogical hoax claim, refuting Apollo."
When you get these arguments about non-parellel shadows, second light sources, invisible ridge lines, and duplicate mountains, do you ever get the feeling some people really need to go outside more?
|
|
|
|
Post by lordoftherings on Nov 18, 2005 18:43:38 GMT -4
I am speaking about the ridgeline that doesn't appear, not about the size of the mountain and its closeness. However, if there is no ridgeline, then, the mountain is certainly very close. With their high zooming in, they should see the ridgeline, no?
|
|
|
|
Post by lordoftherings on Nov 18, 2005 18:46:11 GMT -4
"Help me get all the information I'm too lazy to Google for so I can make a lame and illogical hoax claim, refuting Apollo." When you get these arguments about non-parellel shadows, second light sources, invisible ridge lines, and duplicate mountains, do you ever get the feeling some people really need to go outside more? Not lazy bcz lazy, but bcz tired of the exams and papers to submitt. I thought you could help quickly bcz you have more knowledge on the issue. You can just suggest a site were I can do the search. That is to spare time. |
|
