Figures no 19 and 20 on APOLLOSCAM

[Count Zero]

Forgive me Lunar Orbit, for I am about to sin...

Here is the Taurus-Littrow Valley:

(This link shows Beirut at the same scale)
Note that the summit/ridge of the South Massif is ~10 kilometers from the Apollo 17 landing site.

Here are the unenlarged & uncropped versions of the two images from Colby's site (with links to the hi-res scans):

AS17-147-22527


AS17-134-20435

As you can see, the LM in the second picture looks a lot smaller than in the first. The reason is obvious: The first picture was taken maybe 20 meters from the LM, whereas the second picture was taken perhaps 200 meters away.
Notice that the South Massif appears the same size in each picture. If you think about it the reason for this should also be evident, using the map at the top. In the first picture the mountain is ~10,020m from the camera, whereas the second picture is taken from ~10,200m away; which almost no difference in distance at all.
By cropping and enlarging the second photo to make the LM appear the same size as it appears in the first, Sam Colby is making the background moutain look bigger. This is very dishonest.

LOTR, you can recreate this effect. take a photograph of a car with the Chouf Mountains in the background. Then step back from the car a few 10s of meters and take another photo of the car. The car will appear much smaller, but the mountains will look the same size in each picture. If you have the software, try enlarging the car in the second picture so it looks the same size as it does in the first. The mountains will appear much larger.

Try it and you will see what I mean.

[lordoftherings]

I still can see that the second mountain is slightly bigger than the first while it should be slightly smaller bcz you went further away.
ps. how come you know about the Chouf Mountains?

[JayUtah]

I still can see that the second mountain is slightly bigger than the first...

Did you measure the mountains in the photos, or did you just guess? I measured, and I can't detect any difference.

...while it should be slightly smaller bcz you went further away.

No. The mountain is kilometers away. Moving a hundred meters or so does not change the appearance of something that is that far away.

[sts60]

Jay, are you referring to the photos Count Zero just posted (or their linked images)? Because I agree with LOTR that the South Massif appears larger in the second picture.

I think this is because some of the lower part is concealed in the first picture: it looks like the first photograph was taken from a slightly lower vantage point, as in a shallow depression, or the second photograph was taken from a higher vantage point. Notice how the small outcropping of rocks on the right side of the first photograph is above the "horizon" line in the first and below it in the second. Also, if you look at the higher-resolution images, there are features which are closer to the "horizon" line in the first picture than the second.

Which indicates that the mountain looks bigger in the second picture at least partially because you're seeing more of it.

[lordoftherings]

thanks for your frankness sts60, I will remeber this for you.

[sts60]

LordOfTheRings, I will add my voice to those cautioning you about how easy it is to think a distant feature is much closer than it really is. I saw exactly the same thing on the glacier below Denali (aka Mt. McKinley) in Alaska; see the "Fun with Parallax" thread. The pilot asked us how far away a rock outcropping was; we all guessed 1/2 to 2 miles. It was eight miles away. There are also pictures of completely different-looking foregrounds with almost exactly identical backgrounds - all done by moving in about a 30-meter radius.

[lordoftherings]

I know of this phenomena, but on the moon you have no air and you should see everything in the foreground. If you can see the tiniest details in a far away mountain, you can surely see closest things like craters in the foreground. I wonder if I understood what exactly you are speaking about.

[sts60]

You can see "everything in the foreground" on Earth quite well too, on a clear dry day. I'm also not sure what you're trying to say, but let me point out that if such mistakes are easy to make on Earth, it's even easier to make them on the Moon. It's even worse when you're looking at photographs of the Moon - you don't even have the advantage of stereo vision.

[Kiwi]

LordOfTheRings said:

If you can see the tiniest details in a far away mountain...

You can't see tiny details in a faraway mountain without optical aids, you can only see them if you are close enough. Surely you know that?

Two important things: "Similar" does not mean "identical" or "the same." And "looks like" does not mean "is."

LordOfTheRings, do you spend as much time analysing earth-based photos as you do the lunar photos? If not, why not? It's clear to me -- a photographer since 1968 -- that you don't know much about photography. Therefore, because you don't understand, you should not be criticising or claiming things in the lunar photos are fake.

Bob Dylan sang decades ago, "Don't criticise what you don't understand." He had a very good point which I have followed ever since.

I rarely see "anomolies" in photos because I have the knowledge and experience to help me understand what I'm seeing. Many others on this board are the same. In fact some members are more expert than I, and they freely and generously give us the benefit of their expertise. It pays to listen to them.

Have a look at this site:
www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/index.htm
It explains in simple terms and with simple examples a lot of the so-called lunar anomalies.

I read Dark Moon. I studied its "photo anomalies." And after I stopped laughing, I duplicated them with a digital camera and some well-known natural laws that apply on earth and the moon. And I did it with no photographic training or awards. My conclusion: The Apollo images were taken on the moon without benefit of clumsy props or hidden light towers. My second conclusion: Some of those Apollo deniers need to learn more about photography.

You seem to be spending time on conspiracy websites, but have you spent plenty of time on JayUtah's website?
www.clavius.org

Or Bob B's?
www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

Or at the Encyclopedia Astronautica?
www.astronautix.com/
Look up the chronology there (small link on the right) for any year you choose from about the 1920s onwards.

<Edited to add quote from Thomas Bohn's site>

[JayUtah]

Jay, are you referring to the photos Count Zero just posted (or their linked images)?

Yes.

Because I agree with LOTR that the South Massif appears larger in the second picture.

Yes, I can accept this. But as I said, I measured.

In the top photo there is a bright feature on the mountain just above the "knuckle" of the right LM strut. The distance between this feature and the nearest point on the ridgeline is identical in both photos.

Which indicates that the mountain looks bigger in the second picture at least partially because you're seeing more of it.

Yes. And consider also that the LM obscures much of the mountain in one of the pictures.

This is exactly my point. Our impression that something "looks" bigger can be affected and fooled by any number of factors. Thus when we want to use the size of something in an image as data for a quantitative analysis, measuring is the thing to do.

When I said that moving a hundred meters or so doesn't change the "appearance" of something, I meant its apparent size. If I take ten steps toward the mountains at the far end of my valley, the mountain doesn't look any closer. But in taking those ten steps I may have moved into a position where a nearby tree blocks my view.

[Bob B.]

lordoftherings said:

Hey Bob, I am still waiting your answer about the backdrop. You said when the LM got gigger, the backdrop got bigger, but it doesn't seem so. It looks smaller than the other one, if you hide both LMs and compare them.

Are you talking about my experimental photographs? I already attempted to explain this. I previously wrote,

==========================================

The reason the box appears larger in comparison to the LM in the bottom photo is because as I moved the camera away my distance from the LM increased proportionately larger than my distance from the box. Here’s an example:

Let’s say in the first photo the camera is 1 foot from the LM and 5 feet from the box. If I move the camera back 5 feet it is now 6 feet from the LM and 10 feet from the box. The camera’s distance from the LM increased by a factor of 6 while its distance from the box increased by a factor of only 2. Therefore the LM will appear 1/6 its previous size and the box 1/2 its previous size.

If I used a 4X zoom (or enlarge the photo 4 times), then the LM will appear 2/3 the size it did in the first photo and the box will appear 2 times larger than the first photo.

==========================================

As I doubled my distance from the box it should appear 1/2 the size. But at the same time I zoomed in 4X, therefore the box appears twice as big in the second photo, i.e. 1/2 X 4 = 2

What about this explanation do you not understand? I will be happy to clarify but I'm not sure what problem you're having.


edit spelling

[Kiwi]

bob said:

...What about this explanation do you not understand? I will be happy to clarify but I'm not sure what problem you're having.

LordOfTheRings: You have sometimes asked for posters to make simpler explanations for you, but it doesn't work like that. Many complex problems can only be explained with complex information. Fortunately, we have on this board people who are real experts at explaining things as simply as possible -- some are the best I've ever known in 50+ years.

It's up to each reader to put in the appropriate effort to understand the posts. Naturally, you have difficulties with the language that many of us don't, but with the right effort you will overcome that. (Hey! You're cleverer than me because I can speak only one language, although I can understand a little 1642 Dutch from Abel Tasman's Journals.)

The secret is to read something over and over and over until you understand it. Note every word and don't miss a thing. If someone is describing something about a photo or diagram, do exactly what they say, otherwise you'll never understand them.

In the words of Winston Churchill, "Never give in! Never give in! Never give in..." until you understand it.

Hoax-promoters often take only a few lines to claim there is some "anomoly", but it can take pages to debunk them. That's just the way it is.

[LunarOrbit]

countzero said:

Forgive me Lunar Orbit, for I am about to sin...

The only image that broke the rules is the first one because it is wider than 400 pixels. It didn't distort the forum though, so I can probably increase the size restriction. No big deal.

All of your pictures are public domain so it's ok to link to them here as long as they are on your own webspace or an image hosting service (like Photobucket.com). You used Tinypic.com so that's ok.

[sts60]

Yes, I can accept this. But as I said, I measured.

In the top photo there is a bright feature on the mountain just above the "knuckle" of the right LM strut. The distance between this feature and the nearest point on the ridgeline is identical in both photos.

OK, thanks. For some reason I just assumed that you had measured from the "horizon line" to the hill top, and couldn't believe you couldn't just see it. That was kinda dumb of me to think that.

Bad sts60! No T-shirt!

LordOfTheRings: d'you see what happened? The reason the mountain looks bigger in the 2nd picture is that part of it is obscured in the first one, due to differences in elevation of the places where the photographs are made. (And possibly different elevations in the background due to differences in the azimuth of the camera.)

[lordoftherings]

You can't see tiny details in a faraway mountain without optical aids, you can only see them if you are close enough. Surely you know that?

I am saying that on the moon, you can see the details of the pics, even the small details can be seen, according to the pics. you should for sure see the small craters on the foreground, not like the snow on earth where the foreground doesn't have dicrepancies and holes.


LordOfTheRings: d'you see what happened? The reason the mountain looks bigger in the 2nd picture is that part of it is obscured in the first one, due to differences in elevation of the places where the photographs are made. (And possibly different elevations in the background due to differences in the azimuth of the camera.)

Maybe. BUT I WOULD WANT YOU TO SHOW US THE MEASUREMENTS,TO CUT THE MOUNTAIN IN FRONT OF US AND SHOW YOUR WORK.


However, the biggest difference lies in the panshot. If i ask Michael Tuttle if he just stitched the photos as are or resized them, would he respond? I mean, there is very huge differences in the mountain size.