|
Post by Tanalia on Dec 3, 2005 7:57:55 GMT -4
Regarding the sixth photo, the "long" footprint: Did you know a one footed big foot walked on the moon..? If not, now you do. Explain this! Merely a second footprint landing about halfway on top of a previous one. A similar effect can be seen at the bottom of AS14-64-9127, though in that one, the second print is twisted relative to the first, and the higher angle of the photo makes the distinction more visible. Reference: still looking, it's probably an enlargement of a very small section of something
|
|
|
Post by Tanalia on Dec 3, 2005 8:19:08 GMT -4
Regarding the eighth photo, lighting and shadow length: Why is the front of the jettison bag visible if it's in the shadow..? Why is the front of the lander leg visible when it's also in a shadow..? Why are the words United States visible if they are on the shadowed side..? Covered for #2 The surface slopes downward from the peg, the shadow is lengthened by following the slope. The bag is near the bottom of the slope, so it doesn't get the same benefit. For comparison, if you and a friend stand in front of a wall around sunset, you will cast similar shadows on the wall. If you step away from the wall, your shadow on the wall doesn't change much, but there is an additional length of shadow from your feet to the bottom of the wall, so overall the shadow is longer. In the photo, the peg's shadow has an extra bit stretching down the slope, to where the more level ground acts the same as the wall in the example. Reference AS11-40-5850
|
|
|
Post by Tanalia on Dec 3, 2005 8:30:46 GMT -4
Regarding the tenth photo, footprints and rover: Where are the footprints in the forefront leading to and why do they just seem to disappear on the right hand side..? They go a little to the right of where the astronaut took the pictures (this is one of a small set). He walked over that way, then before taking the pictures realized that if he stepped to his left a little, he could get the LM nicely included too, rather than hidden behind the rover. The tracks are there, just hard to spot due to the distance and angle. A road in the desert can be just as hard to spot if you are a ways from it and looking across it. Reference AS17-141-21513
|
|
|
Post by Tanalia on Dec 3, 2005 8:44:10 GMT -4
Regarding the eleventh and final photo, flag, shadows, and footprints: Why are there no shadows from the rocks I have circled in yellow..? I have no trouble spotting the shadows in that picture; you may want to try a better version if you can't. I also have no trouble matching up sets of footprints, here or in #9. Are you expecting them to be placed heel-to-toe or something? Reference AS11-40-5905, (or High-Res here,1.1MB)
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Dec 3, 2005 20:41:29 GMT -4
In response to all "Why is this astronaut/rock/object illuminated in shade/shadow" questions, I will simply offer the blanket response "Surface reflection" and the following quickie demo image I originally posted here. The scene is lit only by a desk lamp immediately outside the upper-right corner of the frame. The glue stick is completely in the shadow of the glue bottle, and is illuminated almost entirely by surface reflection from the "ground", as is the shaded side of the glue bottle itself.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Dec 3, 2005 22:20:29 GMT -4
To achieve the effect in the photo above, you say you had to increase the exposure time, with settings of 1/10 sec., F2.7 and ISO 100. But isn't it true that the Apollo camera settings were always set for very fast exposure times, which is why no stars are seen in the photos? They could have set the camera for longer exposure times to photograph stars, but chose not to do this, correct?
So to duplicate the conditions from the photo of the astronaut, shouldn't you have kept the settings at 1/40 sec., F3.1 and ISO 84, which kept the glue stick dark in the shadow of the bottle?
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Dec 3, 2005 23:06:06 GMT -4
To achieve the effect in the photo above, you say you had to increase the exposure time, with settings of 1/10 sec., F2.7 and ISO 100. First off, let me clarify the exposure settings quoted in the other thread. The above settings, as well as those of the "correctly" exposed image, were chosen automatically by the camera's exposure control. This camera does not give me direct access to shutter speed, aperture and ISO equivalence settings, only a menu option which permits deliberate over- or under-exposure in discrete steps. The second photo was overexposed to a degree of "2.0", whatever that's supposed to signify. (Stops?) "Fast" is relative. In terms of star photography, which typically requires exposure times of at least several minutes, any shutter speed on the Hasselblad cameras would be too fast. Photographing sunlit objects, even indirectly via surface reflection, requires far less exposure than photographing stars.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Dec 3, 2005 23:16:55 GMT -4
But isn't it true that the Apollo camera settings were always set for very fast exposure times, which is why no stars are seen in the photos? They could have set the camera for longer exposure times to photograph stars, but chose not to do this, correct? I was under the understanding that the crew set many different exposure times depending on the situation, but never the extreme setting that would have been necessary to view the stars.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Dec 4, 2005 4:01:26 GMT -4
Of course, he should use the same settings as the lunar Hasselblad. That is, assuming, that Data Cable has a desk lamp that is as bright as the Sun. (That's some light you got there!)
I'd only have one thing to say to Moon Man on this set of pictures. Do your own homework (don't just quote Jack White) -- and stop linking those muddy over-compressed JPEG-artifact web pictures as "evidence." If you want to talk about funny shadows, at least link to a proper photograph.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Dec 4, 2005 5:41:02 GMT -4
My compliments to Tanalia -- you're doing a good job. I had one of those "Oh no, not the same old stuff again, not the same old ignorance of exposure, perspective, reflected light, burning and dodging etc." thoughts while reading Moon Man's posts. It seems that Moon Man knows very little about the above topics -- the usual story with self-appointed Apollo critics -- and it would be a good idea if those like him actually educated themselves a little before asking all those types of questions. It's also clear that Moon Man has done little research. He's supposedly a 42-year-old retired lawer, so should know how to. Hell, he even uses photos that have been "cooked" by hoax-believers instead of using decent quality copies such as at the ALSJ or Kip Teague's Apollo Archive www.apolloarchive.comand he doesn't bother quoting the proper AS??-??- ?? numbers, so I suggest to those who have the time that they dig up links to the previous debunkings of the same photos. That would save time, might teach Moon Man a little about doing research, and wouldn't allow him to think that he has come up with something new. Moon Man, some general comments. If you studied the 16mm film of the Apollo 11 EVA on the Spacecraft Films' DVDs, you would see Buzz Aldrin, on the very left of the frame, deliberately plant his boot into virgin soil then photograph it by holding the camera out at arm's length, lens pointing down. This was just one of his many alloted tasks and IIRC it was included on his cuff checklist. He would have practiced it over and over on Earth. And one of his photos was imperfect -- quite out of focus -- which makes a mockery of Bill Kaysing's claim that all the photos were perfect, which they certainly weren't. Later, you would see Buzz walk over the same area and so probably obliterate that famous bootprint. And, of course, you're probably just as capable as the rest of us of studying the relevant section in the ALSJ to learn about what happened and to pull out the correct number of the photo. Earlier in the same film you would see Neil Armstrong walking sideways as he moves out to place the TV camera in its final position. That is probably when he produced that elongated footprint, which is actually two footprints. The clowns at Aulis made much ado about this a while back, claiming something like someone was walking forward on the moon and then obviously "vanished." Probably a "whistleblower," of course. Many of the other footprint "anomalies" could be easily observed after someone has finished a session of gardening or pottering around on a beach. People don't always walk forward only. They stop, turn, step sideways and step backwards. Their footprints penetrate the surface differently, depending on what they are doing. You often query fill light in shadowed areas. Think of it this way. If you stood in the shadow of the LM and looked down-sun (with the sun behind you) and could see the lunar surface, that would be because light is reflecting off that surface into your eyes, right? So if you can see it, you can also turn around and photograph it hitting objects within that shade, right? With the correct exposure (opening up the aperture two or three stops like the astronauts did) you could considerably lighten those objects, right? And if you burned or dodged the print, you could lighten or darken things even more, right? It's just simple, basic photography. I've done it many, many times myself since 1968, including photographing an entire mountain (Mount Ruapehu) so that it looks like it's lit by the sun, but with the constellation of Orion above it in a blue sky, including the pink nebula in Orion's sword. A simple matter of a 30-second exposure at f4 using exactly the same light that lightens the shadows you wonder about -- sunlight bouncing off the lunar surface. Instead of wondering about "anomalies" that don't exist, or things that you don't understand, do some photography and find out these things for yourself. Here's one discussion about Aulis's claims and photographs: www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=3819<Edited to fix an accidental submission of the post before it was finished. Also fixed typo.>
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Dec 4, 2005 7:10:46 GMT -4
Regarding the sixth photo, the "long" footprint... ...Reference: still looking, it's probably an enlargement of a very small section of something AS11-40-5874and AS11-40-5875where you can see remnants of others of Neil's "sideways" footprints. AS11-40-5875 is also cool because you can see Buzz's face, particularly in the Hi Res version. Many of Moon Man's photos are explained here by JayUtah: www.clavius.org/analyze.htmland if Moon Man read all the explanations he might understand a little more about photography. We've regularly referred him to Clavius, but it doesn't seem as if he's taken the time there that he should.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Dec 4, 2005 7:53:31 GMT -4
Here's Buzz doing his boot penetration task in the ALSJ, and it is indeed shown as "Pene-Photo Footprint" on his checklist: 110:25:09 Aldrin (at the MESA): In general, time spent in the shadow doesn't seem to have any (garbled) thermal effects. (garbled) feel inside the suit. There is a difference, of course, in the (garbled) radiation and the helmet. So I think there's a tendency to feel a little cooler in the shadow than we feel out in the Sun. (Pause) [At about 110:25:17 in the 16-mm film, the shadow of the Hasselblad lens appears at the left edge, followed soon thereafter by Buzz He has the camera in his right hand. He disappears from the 16-mm frame to the left, again, at about 110:25:49. At this point, he probably takes AS11-40- 5876, which shows an undisturbed patch of soil. At about 110:26:05, his right leg comes into view as he plants his right boot deliberately on the pristine patch. A frame from the 16-mm film taken at about 110:26:08 shows him with his leg extended and his boot planted. He then lifts his foot and backs out of the 16-mm field-of-view and takes two "after" pictures of the bootprint: 5877 and 5878. He took the second of these from slightly farther away and got better focus.]
[At about 110:27:00 Buzz steps back into view at the left and plants his boot just beyond the previous bootprint. In a frame from the 16-mm film taken at about 110:27:02, the first bootprint in just behind Buzz's boot. He now takes two pictures of his boot and the new print: 5879 and 5880. The 5-cm rock next to Buzz's boot in the Hasselblad images can be picked out in the 16-mm frame.]
[Readers should note that Buzz is following his checklist fairly closely and that the footprint photos are one of his tasks. During the 1991 mission review, he remembered that he was the one who took them.]And here's Neil stepping sideways with the TV camera: www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/a11f1095659.jpg
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Dec 4, 2005 13:54:29 GMT -4
Tests in using varied exposure settings is also evident in the LM plaque. I believe 3 photos were made (AS11-40-5897 to AS11-40-5899). That's a 3:1 ratio to get the "perfect" picture. The wonders of science never cease to amaze me.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Dec 4, 2005 18:10:04 GMT -4
The second photo was overexposed to a degree of "2.0", whatever that's supposed to signify. (Stops?) Yes, that would be two stops' overexposure; so four times the overall amount of light has hit the film.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Dec 5, 2005 0:24:36 GMT -4
Another "must visit" site for anyone who is interested in so-called anomalies in the lunar surface photos is Thomas Bohn's photo experiments website: www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/index.htmAgain, I'm sure that this was pointed out to Moon Man at the BAUT forum, and if he had looked at only this page www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/0phase.htmhe would find some of his queries answered. From Bohn's site: Well, maybe Bill Kaysing might think that a gold-plated mirror cannot possibly reflect sunlit ground, but surely this simple fact of optics would not fool a world-renowned photographic genius like David Percy, would it?
I'm afraid it would. On page 22 of Dark Moon he writes,
[AS12-46-6806] not only exhibits diverging shadows, but contains more surprises: the shadow side of the astronaut... is not black, and the shaded side of his gold visor actually reflects a bright source of light!
In a tour de force of sorts, David Percy manages with one sentence to proclaim his ignorance on three levels. He shows he knows nothing about how perspective convergence affects shadows (already discussed on this page); he shows he hasn't a clue about light reflection (described on the previous page); and he tells the world that he can be fooled by hidden shadows.
|
|