[Split]Moon hoaxes - split from: Mars Voyage too Soon?

[Southwind17]

O--kay... so why do you still say that they appear to converge ?

Belz..., you might have detected that I placed you on ignore for a while (you might be proud to learn that you are the one and only person to whom I have vested that dubious privilege!). The post above is typical of others by you that prompted such action on my part.

I don't know whether you're lazy, can't read properly, can't comprehend properly, or whether you deliberately or mistakenly misinterpret, like to bicker or a combination of the above.

You might have noticed that I HAVE OPENLY ACCEPTED NOW THAT MAN WALKED ON THE MOON! By definition, therefore, I am no longer questioning the NASA records and information.

I should be grateful if you would acknowledge that you have read and understood this post and all its implications!

[Southwind17]

The image 'expands' increasingly from the centre towards the edges.

Do a web search on rectilinear projection.

Clearly seen in the example values, not in the photo.

I did not undertake this measurement to a 1/100mm accuracy. That's why I said "about". I put two digits after the decimal point, because the high resolution scans available online offer resolution of about 0.022 mm per pixel.

2.7 m would be the distance between the edges of Aldrin's visor and the camera; the distance that Groves tried to calculate. "Aldrin" is a large object and different parts of his body will have different distances from the camera; his feet will be considerably farther away, for example. Distances from other points, such as the front of Armstrong's left foot, or back of Armstrong's right foot, will be different still. "Intuitive" distance has little to no meaning.

(Also, it's possible that the width of Aldrin's visor is not 280 mm as Groves claims; I've been unable to verify that.)

I mean exactly what I said, I stand by it and I will repeat it here again, in case you did not understand that clearly before: The values appear out of thin air and no derivation is shown. This is exactly the case, and I encourage the readers to read carefully the section of Groves' analysis that you quoted and confirm that the values suddenly appear in the middle of the text without any derivation - at least not anywhere in the document that you sent to me. Make sure you understand what deriving a value means.

I refer to what Groves does, not what he claims to do. Groves claims to determine the height of the camera, but what he does is determine the height of the Aldrin's visor where the horizon intersects it. I believe it's apparent to any intelligent person that what Groves does and claims to do are two generally unrelated things.

Of course it wouldn't, because "Aldrin's shins" is a vague, arbitrary term. You ignore the uncertainty inherent in guessing the actual height at which the optical axis crosses vertically under Aldrin's visor. (Hint: this is not the same height as the height marked on Aldrin's leg by the central crosshair.)

Please read what I wrote again, this time paying extra attention to the underlined words:

Does anyone else feel this way? If yes, please, speak up.

Groves' claim (that "the variation in height of the surface between the astronauts is typically a few inches") is baseless and unsupported. This is because there is no basis for that claim (not because it wouldn't be "based on" anything), and nothing in his pseudoscientific analysis supports that claim. I understand that your intention is to fudge these simple truths with semantic obscurity. Good luck with that.

You obviously have a very distorted perception of what a 'fact' is. The facts, of course, completely and undisputably counter his claim. You, however, have said that:

and you advertised

Despite these big claims, you have failed to present an analysis that would overturn the established facts. In fact, you have not presented any authoritative or scientific analysis at all. I would therefore respectfully encourage you to consume your words.

That is all from me. Having fulfilled my commitment here, I have no desire to participate in this thread any further.

I find it disappointing that having carefully and objectively critiqued your critique you cannot stand up to your obvious convictions and seek to justify all those aspects that I have queried or challenged, resorting, instead, to a selective response that purports to enhance your argument, but instead reveals you to be the selectively biased debater that your critique clearly indicated you to be.

I was hoping that my humble acceptance of the genuineness of the Apollo landings would mean that we could continue, for what it's worth, to discuss some of the information that led me and many others to harbour suspicions in the first place.

You appear to have taken exception to my critique, and whilst that in no way affects my new-found position on the matter I can see why such reactions can be seen as highly defensive by many skeptics, and why it really only serves to fuel their continued suspicions.

I had you down as above that kind of spoilt, immature behaviour, which is why I chose to send the Groves analysis to you, but alas, no. I suppose I was naive to think that you could participate in anything like an objective, rational debate unhindered by self-preservation and emotional ties. It's probably as well that you've elected to exit the discussion.

[Southwind17]

Indeed, why is this thread still going? Men walked on the moon, but a photo - one of ten thousand - was faked? Is that were we are now?

We've got UN-funded Nazis in the other thread. Or possibly vice-versa. And popcorn, if anyone wants.

You're free to follow in Thabiguy's footsteps if you wish; nobody's holding you here under duress! ;)

[Southwind17]

I'm a little confused. We're talking about an Apollo 11 picture are we not? (I've not seen Groves' analysis.) If so, then aren't the lenses 38mm? Giving a vertical FOV of 71 degrees...?

http://www.msss.com/moon/apollo11/apollo11.html

If we are talking about the famous Aldrin photo, thats a pretty wide lens.

I'm trusting somebody else here can answer this. I can only offer to run some checks on the internet, but most of my information, as you know, comes from Dark Moon. I think it would be interesting, and educational, to try to clear up the apparent problems with the Groves analysis and put it to bed once and for all.

[Belz...]

Belz..., you might have detected that I placed you on ignore for a while (you might be proud to learn that you are the one and only person to whom I have vested that dubious privilege!).

The only thing I see is that you silence, in the most childish way, people that don't agree with you.

I don't know whether you're lazy, can't read properly, can't comprehend properly, or whether you deliberately or mistakenly misinterpret, like to bicker or a combination of the above.

What I know is that you seem to think yourself superior to others so much that you actually believe insults to be arguments.

You might have noticed that I HAVE OPENLY ACCEPTED NOW THAT MAN WALKED ON THE MOON! By definition, therefore, I am no longer questioning the NASA records and information.

I should be grateful if you would acknowledge that you have read and understood this post and all its implications!

All I remember you saying is that you accepted some things to be genuine. I don't remember reading that you had abandoned that train of thought altogether.

Now, then. Would you mind telling me why the "converging" shadows are relevant if you accept that we went to the moon ?

[Thabiguy]

I find it disappointing that having carefully and objectively critiqued your critique you cannot stand up to your obvious convictions and seek to justify all those aspects that I have queried or challenged, resorting, instead, to a selective response that purports to enhance your argument, but instead reveals you to be the selectively biased debater that your critique clearly indicated you to be.

...

I had you down as above that kind of spoilt, immature behaviour, which is why I chose to send the Groves analysis to you, but alas, no. I suppose I was naive to think that you could participate in anything like an objective, rational debate unhindered by self-preservation and emotional ties. It's probably as well that you've elected to exit the discussion.
You know what the difference between you and me is, Southwind17?

You need to gather mud and sling it if you wish to denounce me - and you're still not fooling anyone.

I needn't say a single word about your style of argumentation - and everyone understands.

[PhantomWolf]

We don't know Craig Lamson's source of this data, so it cannot be considered to be reliable, and certainly doesn't serve to validate the NASA Report. It could, indeed, be obtained from the NASA Report, although there is a slight inconsistency in the figures provided by each source.

If you want I can ask him, he posts over at ApolloHoax.org

Jay Windley (JayUtah) has a bit on FOV for the Apollo camerashere (http://www.clavius.org/photlens.html) and has used a Hasselblad 500 EL/70 so he might know more on the subject as well.

[PetersCreek]

I'm not sure whether you've interpreted this aspect of Groves' analysis correctly. To my mind, the angle of view has to be linear, otherwise the image would need to 'compress' increasingly from the centre towards the edges, which I think is what your saying is the case. That would mean, though, that the image, by definition, is distorted, other than right in the centre, and I don't see how that can be the case.


This statement...and others you've made...lead me to believe that you do not have the grasp of photographic principles that you think you do. As a result of this one in particular, I surmise that you haven't looked through too many wide-angle lenses...and/or haven't done so with a critical eye.

Perspective distortion is a well-known phenomenon among photographers, as is the fact that it is non-linear across the field of view. We know that the effect is far more apparent in wide-angle lenses. We know that distances between the subject and lens...and between the subject and other objects in the FOV...are exaggerated at shorter focal lengths. We know that these effects are more pronounced at the edges of the FOV than they are near the optical axis. We choose lenses to exploit and enhance these effects...or to minimize them. In digital post-production, we can (at least in part) correct for these effects. When assembling panoramic montages, dealing with these effects can be a real challenge. There really is no rational basis on which to dispute this reality.

The fact that you think otherwise also calls into question, the value of your intuitive expectations of the photographic record. They clearly have not served us well in this discussion so far. Given that you've demonstrated little practical knowledge of perspective distortion...or perspective in general, WRT converging shadows...how does your intuition qualify as an tool for reasonably estimating distance, length, or angles measured in perspective?

[ArmillarySphere]

Perspective distortion is also very well known in computer graphics, raytracing et al. I have personally run through the equations for a school project, and they follow quite simply from first principles of geometric optics.

[Damien Evans]

nevermind

[Southwind17]

You know what the difference between you and me is, Southwind17?

You need to gather mud and sling it if you wish to denounce me - and you're still not fooling anyone.

I needn't say a single word about your style of argumentation - and everyone understands.

See here you're mistaken yet again. I can think of many, many other differences, and I don't need to rely on the support of other people to know they're true!

[Southwind17]

Now, then. Would you mind telling me why the "converging" shadows are relevant if you accept that we went to the moon ?

PetersCreek explained it at Post #721, and I accept that explanation. Happy?

[Southwind17]

If you want I can ask him, he posts over at ApolloHoax.org

I don't see why not, if you can; we do seem to be getting conflicting figures.

[Southwind17]

This statement...and others you've made...lead me to believe that you do not have the grasp of photographic principles that you think you do.

How can you claim to know what I think? I have openly admitted that I am by no means fully informed, let alone an expert, when it comes to photography. I believe I understand much of the basics, though.

As a result of this one in particular, I surmise that you haven't looked through too many wide-angle lenses...and/or haven't done so with a critical eye.

That would be correct.

Perspective distortion is a well-known phenomenon among photographers ...

I am aware of perspective distortion with wide-angle lenses. I am not, however, an avid photographer.

... as is the fact that it is non-linear across the field of view.

I was not aware of this, but I am now. Thank you.

We know that the effect is far more apparent in wide-angle lenses. We know that distances between the subject and lens...and between the subject and other objects in the FOV...are exaggerated at shorter focal lengths. We know that these effects are more pronounced at the edges of the FOV than they are near the optical axis. We choose lenses to exploit and enhance these effects...or to minimize them. In digital post-production, we can (at least in part) correct for these effects. When assembling panoramic montages, dealing with these effects can be a real challenge. There really is no rational basis on which to dispute this reality.

Fair enough.

The fact that you think otherwise also calls into question, the value of your intuitive expectations of the photographic record. They clearly have not served us well in this discussion so far. Given that you've demonstrated little practical knowledge of perspective distortion...or perspective in general, WRT converging shadows...how does your intuition qualify as an tool for reasonably estimating distance, length, or angles measured in perspective?

I never suggested that one should place much reliance on intuition, but that's not to say that we should abandon intuition as a possible starting point. I was merely making an observation in the interests of promoting further discussion, which it has, but not constructively, unfortunately.

But let's try to test my intuition regarding Thabiguys calculation of the distance between the two astronauts as 2.7m:

Assuming Aldrin stands around 1900mm tall incl. boots, helmet, etc., we know the sun angle to be around 15 degrees, so a shadow cast by Aldrin would be about 7m long. Now, we suspect that the lunar surface might slope upwards from Aldrin towards Armstrong, thereby accounting for the apparent difference in height between the two astronauts, and which would foreshorten Aldrin's shadow (although Aldrin's standing in a crater would also seem to at least partly account for the difference, which would put the lunar surface essentially flat, but we'll ignore this possibility, at least for the time being). An incline of around 6 degrees would roughly account for the apparent difference in height of the two astronauts of, for argument's sake, say 200mm, assuming they're standing 2.7m apart. So, how much will an incline of 6 degrees foreshorten Aldrin's shadow? Now, unless I'm mistaken(!) a 6-degree incline of the ground will have the same effect as an increase of 6 degrees to the sun angle on level ground. That gives us an equivalent sun angle of 21-degrees, which derives a shadow length of around 5m. So how far apart does an equivalent shadow length of 5m on flat ground put the two astronauts? Well, we can see from the reflection in Aldrin's visor that Armstrong is standing towards to tip of the shadow. Let's knock of a full metre for good measure. That puts it at 4m. This is not overly inconsistent with Groves' 3.85m! What does this tell us? It tells us at least three things:

Sloping ground might well account for the apparent difference in height between the two astronauts (ignoring the lowering of Aldrin by his standing in a crater).
Thabiguys critique of Groves' analysis is at least as flawed as he purports to claim the analysis itself is.
Intuition might not be reliable, but it can often lead one in the right direction!

So, PC, having requested and received a copy of the Groves analysis, can we expect to see your duly considered, objective critique any time soon, or is your nit-picking pedantry regarding angular distortion the totality of your criticism?

"'Nit-picking pedantry' was that?!", I hear you utter. Well, if and when you do offer your wider views(!) perhaps you'd be so kind as to highlight the impact that Grove's apparent ignorance regarding the linearity or otherwise of angle of view has on his conclusion. Perhaps you could also provide your expert answers to the queries that I raised in Thabiguy's so-called critique.

[PetersCreek]

So, PC, having requested and received a copy of the Groves analysis, can we expect to see your duly considered, objective critique any time soon, or is your nit-picking pedantry regarding angular distortion the totality of your criticism?

"'Nit-picking pedantry' was that?!", I hear you utter. Well, if and when you do offer your wider views(!) perhaps you'd be so kind as to highlight the impact that Grove's apparent ignorance regarding the linearity or otherwise of angle of view has on his conclusion. Perhaps you could also provide your expert answers to the queries that I raised in Thabiguy's so-called critique.


Seeing no reason to reinvent the wheel...or flog a dead horse...I'll defer to Thabiguy's evaluation of Groves' work. Seeing even less of a reason for getting sucked into the kind of pissing match you seem to be so fond of, I'll leave the pedantic nitpicking of anomalies to you. As for your queries, rest assured that I'll give them the same prompt attention you gave mine, when I get around to them.

[Southwind17]

Assuming my calculation above of the distance between the two astronauts is correct, a quick measure of the vertical FOV of the Aldrin photo, assuming Aldrin stands at 1900mm tall, gives around 3.25m at a range of 4.00m. This converts to an angular measure of around 44 degrees.

Acknowledging that 4.00m was an overly conservative adjustment from 5m, let's assume 4.50m to be more likely. What does that derive? 40 degrees. What is Groves' calculation? 38 degrees. What is Thabiguy's deduction? 49 degrees. Ahem!

[Southwind17]

Seeing no reason to reinvent the wheel...or flog a dead horse...I'll defer to Thabiguy's evaluation of Groves' work. Seeing even less of a reason for getting sucked into the kind of pissing match you seem to be so fond of, I'll leave the pedantic nitpicking of anomalies to you. As for your queries, rest assured that I'll give them the same prompt attention you gave mine, when I get around to them.

That would be Thabiguys severely flawed 'evaluation', would it?!

Great to see you're prepared to put your expert money where your expert mouth is! :rolleyes:

[PetersCreek]

Yes, yes, yes...declare whatever victory you wish. I'm done with this thread and with you.

[Southwind17]

Yes, yes, yes...declare whatever victory you wish. I'm done with this thread and with you.

Another one bites the moon dust. Dropping like flies now I've declared my conviction. That seems somewhat odd! Could it be that the drop-outs only coming from those who have received the Groves analysis has some relevance, I wonder!

[Southwind17]

I'm a little confused. We're talking about an Apollo 11 picture are we not? (I've not seen Groves' analysis.) If so, then aren't the lenses 38mm? Giving a vertical FOV of 71 degrees...?

If we are talking about the famous Aldrin photo, thats a pretty wide lens.

I think it only appears 'wide' because of the inclination of the camera towards the ground, which picks up features seemingly close to Armstrong's feet. If you imagine the camera being raised to the true horizontal the image captured would probably only just take in Aldrin's feet, and there'd be much more black 'sky' above him. That wouldn't appear 'wide'.

[PixyMisa]

You might have noticed that I HAVE OPENLY ACCEPTED NOW THAT MAN WALKED ON THE MOON! By definition, therefore, I am no longer questioning the NASA records and information.
Then why are you still here?

You were wrong. Fine. You admit that. This puts you miles ahead of the vast majority of conspiracy theorists. Congratulations.

But the game is over.

[Southwind17]

Then why are you still here?

Do you remember my writing this, it was Post #8?:
As I wrote earlier Jim, I'd be inclined to conclude that, on balance, we probably have walked on the moon, if I had to bet my house. My main beef is with the contrasting shallowness of the counter-arguments put up to seek to disprove the allegations and the seemingly damning analyses and studies.

I have a continuing interest in some of the supporting information, both for and against.

You were wrong. Fine. You admit that. This puts you miles ahead of the vast majority of conspiracy theorists. Congratulations.

I had doubts; I wasn't 'wrong'. My doubts are now much diminished, but not non-existent. I do, however, on most matters, like to keep my mind at least open to a fraction of a degree.

But the game is over.

What 'game' would that be, then? It seems that you and I have different purposes here. Please feel free to wander off.

[richardm]

I don't quite follow this. You "openly" concede that man walked on the moon, but have "diminished but not non-existent" doubts? I could understand you saying that you didn't understand how some aspects of the pictures came to be. But how can that amount to a doubt if you genuinely believe that man walked on the moon? What is that you're doubting?

[Southwind17]

I don't quite follow this. You "openly" concede that man walked on the moon, but have "diminished but not non-existent" doubts? I could understand you saying that you didn't understand how some aspects of the pictures came to be. But how can that amount to a doubt if you genuinely believe that man walked on the moon? What is that you're doubting?

I still have doubts about whether man actually walked on the Moon, but only to the extent that Richard Dawkins, for example, has doubts that god doesn't exist, i.e. he cannot conclusively prove it.

Whether some of the NASA photos are faked could well be, but not necessarily would be, a completely different, though related, matter. My main interest is in the approaches and techniques that can be taken in attempting to show such photos to be faked or genuine, and not so much now what the implications might be should any fakery or doctoring be proved or disproved.

[Thabiguy]

Even though I didn't want to, I have to write yet again, as I must correct a mistake that I had made.

My calculation of the distance of Aldrin's visor was, indeed, flawed. Specifically, at this point:
As the visor spans the horizontal center of the image, we'll use an approximation similar to Groves' to determine the distance.
I don't know what I was thinking; even though we measure the visor horizontally and it is near the horizontal center of the image, the distance from the image center cannot be ignored, as it will affect the result. I apologize to the readers.

Let's do a better calculation. We'll consider points A and B on the photograph:
A = (-2.04 mm, 21.35 mm)
B = (3.64 mm, 22.24 mm)
These points are arbitrarily selected to correspond to edges of Aldrin's visor.
(Note about accuracy: Although the points are listed with two digits after the decimal point, to allow readers to trace them to individual pixels on the high resolution scans, it would be unrealistic to assume greater accuracy in measurement than about 0.1 mm. Such inaccuracy will translate to less than 0.1 m in the resulting distance.)
Point P (the model pinhole) is at 3D coordinates (0, 0, (photo width/2)/tan(FOV/2)).
Assuming photo width of 52 mm and FOV of 49.2 degrees, the sides of the triangle PAB are then (values rounded for listing, unrounded for subsequent calculations):
|AB| = 5.75 mm
|PA| = 60.7 mm
|PB| = 61.1 mm
From the cosine law, the angle APB (the calculated angular width of Aldrin's visor) is about 5.4 degrees, which, assuming actual width of 280 mm, would give distance of 2.97 m, or about 3 m between the visor and the camera. This differs by 30 cm, or 10% from my previous estimate.

This change affects my subsequent comments on Groves' analysis at one other point: rederivation of Groves' result of 1073 mm yields 1.15 m, not 1.05 m, increasing the difference from about 1 inch to about 3 inches. The rest of my comments are not affected in any way.

Some forum members apparently have trouble comprehending written text, so I will point out once again:
This is the distance between the edges of Aldrin's visor and the camera; the distance that Groves tried to calculate. Aldrin is a large object and different parts of his body will have different distances from the camera; his feet will be considerably farther away, for example. Distances from other points, such as the front of Armstrong's left foot, or back of Armstrong's right foot, will be different still.In other words, the distance between Aldrin's visor and the camera cannot be used to estimate the length of Aldrin's shadow. Distance between astronauts' feet will be greater than that.



Finally, I would like to address the silly claim that Groves' figure of 37.987 degrees is a better estimate of the FOV than NASA's figure of 49.2 degrees. But how could we verify the FOV? If only we had a picture of an object whose distance and size are both known...

Well, guess what? We do. (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5845.jpg) This picture of the Earth taken from lunar orbit is very conveniently at the center of the image. Its edge goes almost directly through the optical axis, minimizing distortions and making the distance-angle conversion simple and straightforward.

The size of the Earth on the photograph is about 1.96 mm, or 1.9-2.0 mm if you wish to account for inaccuracy.

NASA's FOV of 49.2 degrees, image width 52 mm:
estimated angular size = 1.98 degrees (1.92-2.02 degrees)

Groves' FOV of 37.987 degrees, image width 52 mm:
estimated angular size = 1.49 degrees (1.44-1.52 degrees)

Angular diameter of the Earth, as seen from the Moon during the Apollo 11 mission, was about 1.9 degrees. I think it's unnecessary to say more.

[sts60]

I still have doubts about whether man actually walked on the Moon, but only to the extent that Richard Dawkins, for example, has doubts that god doesn't exist, i.e. he cannot conclusively prove it...
So is it correct to say you accept that men landed on the Moon, but doubt they actually walked on it? You seemed to be hinting at that position earlier.

[Belz...]

PetersCreek explained it at Post #721, and I accept that explanation. Happy?

Fair enough.

[Cuddles]

I think it's unnecessary to say more.

:wave1
Don't worry about the nuts, some of us appreciate good work when we see it.

[Southwind17]

Finally, I would like to address the silly claim that Groves' figure of 37.987 degrees is a better estimate of the FOV than NASA's figure of 49.2 degrees. But how could we verify the FOV? If only we had a picture of an object whose distance and size are both known...

Well, guess what? We do. (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5845.jpg) This picture of the Earth taken from lunar orbit is very conveniently at the center of the image. Its edge goes almost directly through the optical axis, minimizing distortions and making the distance-angle conversion simple and straightforward.

The size of the Earth on the photograph is about 1.96 mm, or 1.9-2.0 mm if you wish to account for inaccuracy.

NASA's FOV of 49.2 degrees, image width 52 mm:
estimated angular size = 1.98 degrees (1.92-2.02 degrees)

Groves' FOV of 37.987 degrees, image width 52 mm:
estimated angular size = 1.49 degrees (1.44-1.52 degrees)

Angular diameter of the Earth, as seen from the Moon during the Apollo 11 mission, was about 1.9 degrees. I think it's unnecessary to say more.

I actually think it would be far better to show where Groves' calculation of the FOV is wrong, which to my mind is the only conclusive approach. The photo of the Earth approach seems too far removed from what it is we're trying to ascertain, and contains inherent uncertainties. Can somebody not show Groves' calculation to be wrong, other than claiming that he's not telling the truth?!

[Southwind17]

So is it correct to say you accept that men landed on the Moon, but doubt they actually walked on it? You seemed to be hinting at that position earlier.

Not at all. Please don't get me wrong; I'm not one for smart arse word games. If NASA was capable of putting a manned LM on the lunar surface I have absolutely no reason to think that those guys couldn't then go for a stroll. Seriously, the answer's: No.

[Southwind17]

:wave1
Don't worry about the nuts, some of us appreciate good work when we see it.

Care to clarify the reference to 'nuts'?

[Southwind17]

From the cosine law, the angle APB (the calculated angular width of Aldrin's visor) is about 5.4 degrees, which, assuming actual width of 280 mm, would give distance of 2.97 m, or about 3 m between the visor and the camera. This differs by 30 cm, or 10% from my previous estimate.

How would you reconcile this with what can be observed of Aldrin's shadow viz Armstrong's location?

[sts60]

Not at all. Please don't get me wrong; I'm not one for smart arse word games. If NASA was capable of putting a manned LM on the lunar surface I have absolutely no reason to think that those guys couldn't then go for a stroll. Seriously, the answer's: No.OK, fair enough. Evidently I tried to read something into your post 774 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3233008&postcount=774) that wasn't there. Thanks.

[PhantomWolf]

I don't see why not, if you can; we do seem to be getting conflicting figures.

I actually think it would be far better to show where Groves' calculation of the FOV is wrong, which to my mind is the only conclusive approach. The photo of the Earth approach seems too far removed from what it is we're trying to ascertain, and contains inherent uncertainties. Can somebody not show Groves' calculation to be wrong, other than claiming that he's not telling the truth?!

I got a PM back from Craig. He uses that calulation that Joe Durnavich does here (http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1188765394&page=1#1188772759) where he found the images width was 55mm, not 52. The 49.25 degrees certainly matches the NASA documented 49.2 degrees, so I'd say that shows that Groves' calulation is incorrect. (I'd note that Jay does agree with the lower value a few posts down and states that his page needs updating and that the 71 degree figure he gives is a theretical maximum, but not necessarily an actual measured value, Joe's is. I'd also note that Groves' 37.987 degrees would still be wrong for a 52mm width as that works out at 46.86 degrees.

atan ((52mm/2)/60mm) * 2 = 46.86 degrees

[PhantomWolf]

We know the sun angle to be around 15 degrees, so a shadow cast by Aldrin would be about 7m long. Now, we suspect that the lunar surface might slope upwards from Aldrin towards Armstrong, thereby accounting for the apparent difference in height between the two astronauts

It's patently pointless to try and use Aldrin's shadow to determine anything about the ground between Armstrong and Aldrin, the shadow isn't pointing at Armstrong, it's off to his side. The only reason it looks close in the reflection is because you are looking at a spherical reflector which distorts what is seen.

[Southwind17]

I got a PM back from Craig. He uses that calulation that Joe Durnavich does here (http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1188765394&page=1#1188772759) where he found the images width was 55mm, not 52. The 49.25 degrees certainly matches the NASA documented 49.2 degrees, so I'd say that shows that Groves' calulation is incorrect. (I'd note that Jay does agree with the lower value a few posts down and states that his page needs updating and that the 71 degree figure he gives is a theretical maximum, but not necessarily an actual measured value, Joe's is. I'd also note that Groves' 37.987 degrees would still be wrong for a 52mm width as that works out at 46.86 degrees.

atan ((52mm/2)/60mm) * 2 = 46.86 degrees

I'm a little confused now. I thought we were talking about a camera with a 70mm format, not 55mm or 52mm (notwithstanding that 70mm would seem to show Groves' figure to be even more out!).

[Southwind17]

It's patently pointless to try and use Aldrin's shadow to determine anything about the ground between Armstrong and Aldrin, the shadow isn't pointing at Armstrong, it's off to his side. The only reason it looks close in the reflection is because you are looking at a spherical reflector which distorts what is seen.

I disagree, and I sense that you have a preference not to analyse this photo any further. Whilst Aldrin's shadow does indeed fall to the side of Armstrong it is patently clear from the reflection in Aldrin's visor that the length of the shadow is equivalent to the distance between the two astronauts, by a reasonably close approximation. The critical parts of the reflected image, namely the point where Armstrong is standing and the end of Aldrin's shadow, fall pretty close to the centre of Aldrin's visor, where the least distortion would occur. I think it's pretty safe to say that the tip of Aldrin's shadow sits off to the side of where Armstrong is standing by a distance significantly less the the height of Armstrong. I'd estimate the distance as little or no more than 1.5m, and the lunar surface at that point can be seen to be essentially flat.

I'll tell you what, in order to try to resolve this apparent anomaly, I'll lay down a challenge to you and everybody else still reading this thread: I challenge somebody to reconcile sensibly and objectively, by calculation the following three aspects of the photo:

The distance between the two astronauts derived from the field of view.
The distance between the two astronauts derived from a shadow analysis.
The height difference between the two astronauts (I'd be happy if this is only estimated by observation of the photo, within reason, of course!)

So, let's see who's up for the challenge!

One other thing that seems odd to me with this photo that I've not considered before: Given that the sun is essentially behind Aldrin, if I were Aldrin I think I would have preferred to raise the reflective visor on my helmet. I'm pretty sure I would have much preferred to have my face on the image rather than a reflection of the surroundings (no, I'm not boasting; I'm no Johnny Depp!). I would at least have thought one photo of each would have been a good idea.

This raises an interesting question in my mind: How many photos of astronauts on the lunar surface are there where the astronaut's face can be seen, and the astronaut identified?

[Belz...]

Why are we still talking about this ? I thought it was settled.

[Southwind17]

Why are we still talking about this ? I thought it was settled.

You just don't take the time to follow threads properly do you! I suggest you read Posts #772 to #774 above for the answer to your question, and please pay attention to what I pointed out to PixyMisa, although it should go without saying, but some people here seem not to realize: PLEASE FEEL FREE TO WANDER OFF!
Actually, why not have a go at the challenge I set above (I assume you didn't read that either!). I've just run Groves' analysis with the FOV figure that PhantomWolf confirms above, namely 49.2 degrees, i.e. the NASA documented figure. Guess how much difference it makes to his calculations and conclusions? Zilch! That said, I think that figure of 49.2 degrees is only potentially valid with an image width of 55mm, and as I've written above I'm confused over the apparent inconsistency that that raises given the 70mm format cameras that the astronauts supposedly used.

Incidentally, it's pretty evident from all of your posts, including other threads, that you have very limited, if any, constructive contribution to make to any intelligent discussion. It seems to me that the total sum of your 'contribution' to this Forum amounts to keeping your head below the parapet by siding with the masses and chipping in with sarcy, smart-arse comments when you find the time, that serve only as slave to your own self-gratification.

Oh well, time to hit the 'ignore' button again, and probably keep it that way this time!

[Shrinker]

You just don't take the time to follow threads properly do you! I suggest you read Posts #772 to #774 above for the answer to your question, and please pay attention to what I pointed out to PixyMisa, although it should go without saying, but some people here seem not to realize: PLEASE FEEL FREE TO WANDER OFF!
Actually, why not have a go at the challenge I set above (I assume you didn't read that either!). I've just run Groves' analysis with the FOV figure that PhantomWolf confirms above, namely 49.2 degrees, i.e. the NASA documented figure. Guess how much difference it makes to his calculations and conclusions? Zilch! That said, I think that figure of 49.2 degrees is only potentially valid with an image width of 55mm, and as I've written above I'm confused over the apparent inconsistency that that raises given the 70mm format cameras that the astronauts supposedly used.

Incidentally, it's pretty evident from all of your posts, including other threads, that you have very limited, if any, constructive contribution to make to any intelligent discussion. It seems to me that the total sum of your 'contribution' to this Forum amounts to keeping your head below the parapet by siding with the masses and chipping in with sarcy, smart-arse comments when you find the time, that serve only as slave to your own self-gratification.

Oh well, time to hit the 'ignore' button again, and probably keep it that way this time!

70mm is the physical width of the film including sprocket holes, not the image projected onto the film. A gate or mask within the camera determines the size of the exposed portion on the film. This page (http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/filmdims.htm) discusses the issue with respect to motion picture cameras. A quick google didn't turn up anything for stills cameras but the principle (and the film) is the same.

FWIW, I think you should continue to discuss the subject if you want to learn more about photographic analysis and the tricks of conspiracy theorists. And I don't think it's beyond possibility that anyone here could make a mistake in their counter-analysis. Carry on...

[Southwind17]

70mm is the physical width of the film including sprocket holes, not the image projected onto the film. A gate or mask within the camera determines the size of the exposed portion on the film. This page (http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/filmdims.htm) discusses the issue with respect to motion picture cameras. A quick google didn't turn up anything for stills cameras but the principle (and the film) is the same.

FWIW, I think you should continue to discuss the subject if you want to learn more about photographic analysis and the tricks of conspiracy theorists. And I don't think it's beyond possibility that anyone here could make a mistake in their counter-analysis. Carry on...

If you're being genuine with this last paragraph, thanks.

Everything I've read, so far, though, basically says that the FOV can be calculated from the focal length of the lens and the format size as:

A = 2 arctan d / 2f

Where d is the actual dimension of the format (in the same direction) and f is the focal length.

This formula becomes slightly more complex when focusing close up compared to the focal length.

So, are we possibly saying that although the camera format is 70mm that's NOT the figure we should be using to calculate the FOV, even though all the literature seems to say so?

Where have all the budding photographic experts gone?!

[Shrinker]

If you're being genuine with this last paragraph, thanks.

Everything I've read, so far, though, basically says that the FOV can be calculated from the focal length of the lens and the format size as:

A = 2 arctan d / 2f

Where d is the actual dimension of the format (in the same direction) and f is the focal length.

This formula becomes slightly more complex when focusing close up compared to the focal length.

So, are we possibly saying that although the camera format is 70mm that's NOT the figure we should be using to calculate the FOV, even though all the literature seems to say so?

Where have all the budding photographic experts gone?!

Absolutely, you need to use the actual image size, not the format size. I don't know about individual camera types to know whether you can assume an image size given the format.


Edit: you also need to know whether the image you are analysing has been cropped. A full scan ought to include the gate itself (usually seen as a slightly fuzzy black border with rounded corners). If it doesn't how do you know you haven't lost a bit of the image during developing, reproduction or scanning?

[Belz...]

Incidentally, it's pretty evident from all of your posts, including other threads, that you have very limited, if any, constructive contribution to make to any intelligent discussion. It seems to me that the total sum of your 'contribution' to this Forum amounts to keeping your head below the parapet by siding with the masses and chipping in with sarcy, smart-arse comments when you find the time, that serve only as slave to your own self-gratification.

That's alright, Wind. I prefer the smart-ass comments to being a complete ignoramus like you.

ETA: And considering what you've also found "evident" before, I'm not particularily insulted.

Oh well, time to hit the 'ignore' button again, and probably keep it that way this time!

Don't worry, by the time you're done ignoring everyone who disagrees with you, you won't have anybody but yourself to listen to. That should sound pleasing to you.

[CurtC]

I'll tell you what, in order to try to resolve this apparent anomaly, I'll lay down a challenge to you and everybody else still reading this thread: I challenge somebody to reconcile sensibly and objectively, by calculation the following three aspects of the photo:

The distance between the two astronauts derived from the field of view.
Haven't we done this already?

The distance between the two astronauts derived from a shadow analysis.I'm not sure this is possible with any degree of accuracy. Certainly nowhere near the accuracy you could get from the first method.

The height difference between the two astronauts (I'd be happy if this is only estimated by observation of the photo, within reason, of course!)I know we've done this, because I did it myself. Imagine Armstrong standing right next to Aldrin, Armstrong with the camera on his chest. The famous image caught Aldrin right about eye level, so what's the difference between Armstrong's camera height and Aldrin's eye height? Somewhere around 20 to 25 cm. That's how much higher the ground would have to be underneath Armstrong to produce that photo.



Edit: you also need to know whether the image you are analysing has been cropped.Fortunately, the Apollo Hasselblads had those convenient reseau marks for that.

[Southwind17]

CurtC - I think you might have missed slightly what the challenge is. It's not simply to identify the three measurements, it's to reconcile them, and I say 'reconcile' because, to my mind, the shadow analysis, even a close approximation, seems to derive a distance nothing like any of the figures that have been suggested from the FOV derivation. That's why I'm not so fussed about getting the difference in height between the two astronauts right, because it has little impact on the outcome.

Imagine that the lunar surface were flat. At a 15-degree sun angle Aldrin's shadow would be around 6.5m long, allowing for a reduction in height of 200mm for the depression that he's standing in. I doubt that anybody would seriously deny that Armstrong seems to be standing at a distance from Aldrin pretty close to the shadow length, based on the reflection. In order to foreshorten the shadow to the distance calculated by Thabiguy, the incline between Aldrin and Armstrong would need to be in the order of 15-20 degrees (around 1:3), assuming Aldrin is already about 200mm lower. That seems wholly inconsistent with what we see in the photo.

Haven't we done this already?

Well Thabiguy did it, and I disputed it, and nobody has verified it one way or the other. The confusion over how one calculates FOV has only served to muddy the waters, in my mind. Regardless, both Groves' figure and Thabiguy's are inconsistent with what the shadow analysis derives.

I'm not sure this is possible with any degree of accuracy. Certainly nowhere near the accuracy you could get from the first method.

I believe, given what I've written above and recently, that Armstrong's position viz the shadow length can be estimated, certainly with a degree of accuracy (as anything can, technically), but actually with a good degree of accuracy. Where would you say he's standing in relation to the end of the shadow? How much margin for error would you reasonably allow?

I know we've done this, because I did it myself. Imagine Armstrong standing right next to Aldrin, Armstrong with the camera on his chest. The famous image caught Aldrin right about eye level, so what's the difference between Armstrong's camera height and Aldrin's eye height? Somewhere around 20 to 25 cm. That's how much higher the ground would have to be underneath Armstrong to produce that photo.

OK, let's go with either one of those figures then; it makes insignificant difference.

Fortunately, the Apollo Hasselblads had those convenient reseau marks for that.

So what are you suggesting?

Any views on my comment re. the reflective visors?

[phunk]

Imagine that the lunar surface were flat.

If you start off with a false premise, the rest of your analysis is doomed.

[Belz...]

Imagine that the lunar surface were flat.

:rolleyes:

[Southwind17]

If you start off with a false premise, the rest of your analysis is doomed.

How can 'imagining' something be a 'false premise'? I suppose I could have written 'assume' instead, which, equally, is not a false premise, particularly when that assumption is used as a means to an end, and is exchanged later with facts, or eliminated completely. In order to calculate the effects that an incline has on shadow length it's helpful, if not essential, to start by calculating the shadow length on a flat surface.

What's really 'doomed' is the idea of coming into a thread late erroneously thinking that you understand what's being discussed and purporting to make a meaningful contribution when you don't take the time to read up and, therefore, completely miss the point and/or substance. That's what's 'doomed'!

[tsig]

I disagree, and I sense that you have a preference not to analyse this photo any further. Whilst Aldrin's shadow does indeed fall to the side of Armstrong it is patently clear from the reflection in Aldrin's visor that the length of the shadow is equivalent to the distance between the two astronauts, by a reasonably close approximation. The critical parts of the reflected image, namely the point where Armstrong is standing and the end of Aldrin's shadow, fall pretty close to the centre of Aldrin's visor, where the least distortion would occur. I think it's pretty safe to say that the tip of Aldrin's shadow sits off to the side of where Armstrong is standing by a distance significantly less the the height of Armstrong. I'd estimate the distance as little or no more than 1.5m, and the lunar surface at that point can be seen to be essentially flat.

I'll tell you what, in order to try to resolve this apparent anomaly, I'll lay down a challenge to you and everybody else still reading this thread: I challenge somebody to reconcile sensibly and objectively, by calculation the following three aspects of the photo:

The distance between the two astronauts derived from the field of view.
The distance between the two astronauts derived from a shadow analysis.
The height difference between the two astronauts (I'd be happy if this is only estimated by observation of the photo, within reason, of course!)

So, let's see who's up for the challenge!

One other thing that seems odd to me with this photo that I've not considered before: Given that the sun is essentially behind Aldrin, if I were Aldrin I think I would have preferred to raise the reflective visor on my helmet. I'm pretty sure I would have much preferred to have my face on the image rather than a reflection of the surroundings (no, I'm not boasting; I'm no Johnny Depp!). I would at least have thought one photo of each would have been a good idea.

This raises an interesting question in my mind: How many photos of astronauts on the lunar surface are there where the astronaut's face can be seen, and the astronaut identified?

Just take a picture. Look at it. You were not in charge.

[tsig]

If you're being genuine with this last paragraph, thanks.

Everything I've read, so far, though, basically says that the FOV can be calculated from the focal length of the lens and the format size as:

A = 2 arctan d / 2f

Where d is the actual dimension of the format (in the same direction) and f is the focal length.

This formula becomes slightly more complex when focusing close up compared to the focal length.

So, are we possibly saying that although the camera format is 70mm that's NOT the figure we should be using to calculate the FOV, even though all the literature seems to say so?

Where have all the budding photographic experts gone?!

Someday you will find a map.

This map will be printed on soft paper.

It will show you great treasure.

[Southwind17]

Just take a picture. Look at it. You were not in charge.

Someday you will find a map.

This map will be printed on soft paper.

It will show you great treasure.

You need to get some sleep! ;)

[Southwind17]

I take it nobody's up for the challenge then (Post #787), or can explain why there are no lunar photos showing astronauts' faces!

[ArmillarySphere]

"What is Hasty Generalization"

I'll continue with Logical Fallacies, Alex. At this rate we'll get them all!

[Belz...]

You might have noticed that I HAVE OPENLY ACCEPTED NOW THAT MAN WALKED ON THE MOON! By definition, therefore, I am no longer questioning the NASA records and information.

I take it nobody's up for the challenge then (Post #787), or can explain why there are no lunar photos showing astronauts' faces!

Pants on fire.

[Southwind17]

Pants on fire.

I think this is the second time, at least, that you've accused me of lying. Do you remember reading this:
I still have doubts about whether man actually walked on the Moon, but only to the extent that Richard Dawkins, for example, has doubts that god doesn't exist, i.e. he cannot conclusively prove it.

Whether some of the NASA photos are faked could well be, but not necessarily would be, a completely different, though related, matter. My main interest is in the approaches and techniques that can be taken in attempting to show such photos to be faked or genuine, and not so much now what the implications might be should any fakery or doctoring be proved or disproved.

This latest post of yours simply serves perfectly to prove my earlier observation about you:
You just don't take the time to follow threads properly do you!

Incidentally, it's pretty evident from all of your posts, including other threads, that you have very limited, if any, constructive contribution to make to any intelligent discussion. It seems to me that the total sum of your 'contribution' to this Forum amounts to keeping your head below the parapet by siding with the masses and chipping in with sarcy, smart-arse comments when you find the time, that serve only as slave to your own self-gratification.

[Belz...]

Whatever, Southwind. Have your cake and eat it, too.

[Shrinker]

I take it nobody's up for the challenge then (Post #787), or can explain why there are no lunar photos showing astronauts' faces!


You can see Aldrin's face in AS11-40-5875. Would take your challenge but very busy right now.

[sts60]

I take it nobody's up for the challenge then (Post #787), or can explain why there are no lunar photos showing astronauts' faces!
I can explain it: your claim is wrong.

Apollo 11 (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/images11.html). A couple of photographs showing Buzz Aldrin's face: AS11-40-5875, AS11-40-5951 (see attached detail)
Apollo 17 (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/images17.html). A couple of photographs showing Gene Cernan's face: AS17-134-20386 (see attached detail), AS17-134-20387.

There may be others. I just searched for " face" from the image libraries. Took me about five minutes.

[Southwind17]

You can see Aldrin's face in AS11-40-5875. Would take your challenge but very busy right now.

I can explain it: your claim is wrong.

Apollo 11 (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/images11.html). A couple of photographs showing Buzz Aldrin's face: AS11-40-5875, AS11-40-5951 (see attached detail)
Apollo 17 (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/images17.html). A couple of photographs showing Gene Cernan's face: AS17-134-20386 (see attached detail), AS17-134-20387.

There may be others. I just searched for " face" from the image libraries. Took me about five minutes.

Thanks for these guys. Interesting that in AS11-40-5875 Aldrin's facing into the sun but his visor's up. Any idea why he would have elected to keep his visor down in the famous down-sun AS11-40-5903 shot?

No rush on the reconciliation Shrinker - any time to suit you. Thanks

[Shrinker]

Interesting that in AS11-40-5875 Aldrin's facing into the sun but his visor's up.

Is it? Is it really? Is Aldrin's face really dark orange?

[defaultdotxbe]

Is it? Is it really? Is Aldrin's face really dark orange?
you can also clearly see the rim of the visor is down (in both pictures)

[sts60]

Compare to the training photo 69-H-670 from A11: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/ap11-69-H-670.jpg

Also, the notes for AS11-40-5875 state:
...Journal Contributors Owen Merrick, Brian McInall, and Markus Mehring call attention to the fact that, in the high-resolution version, we can see Buzz peering over at Neil. In 5874 Buzz is facing the flag and saluting; but, by the time Neil takes 5875, Buzz has turned his body slightly - and his head a great deal more - to look over to see if Neil has taken the picture, possibly having lowered his right hand in the interim. Normally, the high reflectivity of the gold visor would keep us from seeing Buzz's face but, as Mehring notes, in this case "his face is directly illuminated by the sunlight from the front and at a right angle to the observer's point of view, so it literally shines through the visor, especially because he's sticking his head forward. At different viewing and illumination angles and with his head deeper inside the helmet and less brightly illuminated, reflections off of the visor that would wash out anything behind it. But in this case we're lucky." Journal Contributor Harald Kucharek has created a two-frame movie consisting of frames 5874 and 5875 which clearly shows Buzz turning his torso slightly between frames, but without moving his feet. Note, in particular, the change in his knee positions. Both the TV record and the 16--mm film show Buzz turning in Neil's direction twice during this interval.

[Southwind17]

Is it? Is it really? Is Aldrin's face really dark orange?

you can also clearly see the rim of the visor is down (in both pictures)

Sorry; my mistake. I assumed the visor had to be up to see the astronaut's face. I figured the visors were like mirror reflectors, as seems to be the case in AS11-40-5903. Why is Aldrin's face not visible in this shot, given he's facing away from the sun?

[Shrinker]

Sorry; my mistake. I assumed the visor had to be up to see the astronaut's face. I figured the visors were like mirror reflectors, as seems to be the case in AS11-40-5903. Why is Aldrin's face not visible in this shot, given he's facing away from the sun?

Because he's facing away from the sun. The sun is not on his face. His face is not brightly illuminated. His face is dark.

[CurtC]

The other day I saw a picture of a car facing the sun, but the sun visors were up! And I saw another picture later, of a car facing away from the sun, but the sun visor was down! How do you explain these anomalies?

[Southwind17]

Because he's facing away from the sun. The sun is not on his face. His face is not brightly illuminated. His face is dark.

Now you can't have it both ways! Either the lunar surface provides significant fill lighting or it doesn't. If it does, as seems to be the case, given the extent to which Aldrin is well lit in AS11-40-5903, then how come his visor is completely reflective, and none of his face is visible?

The other day I saw a picture of a car facing the sun, but the sun visors were up! And I saw another picture later, of a car facing away from the sun, but the sun visor was down! How do you explain these anomalies?

Why do you think that's an anomaly?

[PhantomWolf]

Now you can't have it both ways! Either the lunar surface provides significant fill lighting or it doesn't. If it does, as seems to be the case, given the extent to which Aldrin is well lit in AS11-40-5903, then how come his visor is completely reflective, and none of his face is visible?

Because his face is a lot darker than the reflection in visor. It works like a one way mirror, as long as the room behind the mirror is darker than the area outside the mirror, the glass appears to just be a reflector, but if the room behind the one way mirror is brighter then it can be seen through the reflection. Same thing here. When Aldrin's face is in the sunlight it is brighter than the reflection on the visor and it can be seen, when he's facing away, it's darker and can't be. Basic optics and lighting from Physics 101.

[Shrinker]

Now you can't have it both ways! Either the lunar surface provides significant fill lighting or it doesn't. If it does, as seems to be the case, given the extent to which Aldrin is well lit in AS11-40-5903, then how come his visor is completely reflective, and none of his face is visible?


SW I've already given you the benefit of the doubt once, but I have to wonder why you're making no effort to understand these simple concepts.

Tell me which part you don't understand...

Direct sunlight is significantly brighter than reflected moonlight.
In 5875 Aldrin's face is in direct sunlight.
In 5903 Aldrin's face is in reflected moonlight.
The moons surface appears brighter downsun than upsun.
In 5875 Adrin's visor is reflecting mainly upsun (darker) terrain.
In 5903 Adrin's visor is refecting mainly downsun (brighter) terrain.
Therefore for two different reasons the brightness ratio of Aldrin's face to the visor reflections is significantly lower in 5903.

You may also be surprised to learn that when you're wearing mirrored sunglasses, sometimes the girls can see where you're looking. So be careful out there.

[Southwind17]

Because his face is a lot darker than the reflection in visor. It works like a one way mirror, as long as the room behind the mirror is darker than the area outside the mirror, the glass appears to just be a reflector, but if the room behind the one way mirror is brighter then it can be seen through the reflection. Same thing here. When Aldrin's face is in the sunlight it is brighter than the reflection on the visor and it can be seen, when he's facing away, it's darker and can't be. Basic optics and lighting from Physics 101.

SW I've already given you the benefit of the doubt once, but I have to wonder why you're making no effort to understand these simple concepts.

Tell me which part you don't understand...

Direct sunlight is significantly brighter than reflected moonlight.
In 5875 Aldrin's face is in direct sunlight.
In 5903 Aldrin's face is in reflected moonlight.
The moons surface appears brighter downsun than upsun.
In 5875 Adrin's visor is reflecting mainly upsun (darker) terrain.
In 5903 Adrin's visor is refecting mainly downsun (brighter) terrain.
Therefore for two different reasons the brightness ratio of Aldrin's face to the visor reflections is significantly lower in 5903.

You may also be surprised to learn that when you're wearing mirrored sunglasses, sometimes the girls can see where you're looking. So be careful out there.

OK, I'll accept this as fact. Would the photo have looked much different had Aldrin had his visor up?

[Southwind17]

Would take your challenge but very busy right now.

The cross-hairs etched on the Hasselblad reseau plate definitely seem to be spaced at 10mm intervals (can't recall who suggested that here), as extension of those distances to the edges of the photos on this site (http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html) puts those images at 52mm square. I'm not bothered whether you use 52mm or 55mm to calculate the FOV when you get around to taking up my earlier challenge. I don't think it will significantly affect the outcome.

[Shrinker]

www.apolloarchive.com has 16mm still frames of Armstrong with his visor up. You can clearly see brightly lit pink skin. Sorry I can't link directly to the images, but there's one shown at the top of the above link.

[Shrinker]

The cross-hairs etched on the Hasselblad reseau plate definitely seem to be spaced at 10mm intervals (can't recall who suggested that here), as extension of those distances to the edges of the photos on this site (http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html) puts those images at 52mm square. I'm not bothered whether you use 52mm or 55mm to calculate the FOV when you get around to taking up my earlier challenge. I don't think it will significantly affect the outcome.

Don't hold your breath. I have 3 work deadlines to beat before Xmas, and I haven't started my shopping yet.

[I Am He]

I say, All Wind. When they beat this one down too, what else are you going to bring up?? So far you've been wrong with everything you've said.

May I ask you a question?? Did you write all that stuff yourself, or did you have someone type it for you??

I Am He

[Southwind17]

I say, All Wind. When they beat this one down too, what else are you going to bring up?? So far you've been wrong with everything you've said.

May I ask you a question?? Did you write all that stuff yourself, or did you have someone type it for you??

I Am He

When the famous Aldrin photo's convincingly debunked per my earlier challenge I think I'll let it lie then. Not many people coming forward though. Fancy a go?!

[I Am He]

A Go? With such an expert on Photo Annalist as yourself?? Why I would never even think of changeling your outstanding expertise. I'm just here watching what's the next thing you chose to add to the list. After all you've been wrong with everything so far, one more thing should not matter.

I Am He

PS: Did it ever cross your mind that they can see right through your little game??

[Southwind17]

I'm just here watching what's the next thing you chose to add to the list. After all you've been wrong with everything so far, one more thing should not matter.

Can you not read very well? I repeat:
When the famous Aldrin photo's convincingly debunked per my earlier challenge I think I'll let it lie then.

I understand your reluctance to rise to the challenge.

[I Am He]

My dear All Wind: There is nothing to chalange you about. It has all been said, and I will not sit here and play your sill game. If you can't see that everything you said has been torn apart, then why do you think this next silly claim is any different? Enjoy.

I Am He

[Southwind17]

My dear All Wind: There is nothing to chalange you about. It has all been said, and I will not sit here and play your sill game. If you can't see that everything you said has been torn apart, then why do you think this next silly claim is any different? Enjoy.

I Am He

Goodbye.

[Belz...]

Goodbye.

"Good! If I keep ignoring all of those who defy my beliefs, I can continue to hold them without any doubts!"

[Southwind17]

"Good! If I keep ignoring all of those who defy my beliefs, I can continue to hold them without any doubts!"

Not the most appropriate quote, Belz, given that I have many doubts about many things, but the best you're capable of mustering, I have no doubt!

[Belz...]

Don't you have me on ignore ? If not, what are you waiting for ? I thought nothing I ever said was of any use ?

[Southwind17]

Don't you have me on ignore ? If not, what are you waiting for ? I thought nothing I ever said was of any use ?

I did have you on ignore, for a while, when you were being completely juvenile. I'm not waiting for anything, but if you gravitate towards childishness again, which I suspect you will, I suppose I might be tempted.

Meantime, your inane comments can sometimes hold mild, limited entertainment value, if only from a psychological perspective that leaves one pondering over what could possibly motivate you to mix with people of an evidently higher intellect, thereby highlighting your severely limited ability to socialize in an adult environment.

Your final thought is correct. I don't put people on ignore, though, just because they have no meaningful or constructive contribution to make to this Forum, including you!

Have you ever taken the time to identify the proportion of your posts that serve to develop or enhance a debate? You might do well to try it some time, but be prepared then to consider that your time here might be better spent elsewhere!

[Southwind17]

With regard to the challenge at Post #787, having thought about it further, I think it's important that the seeming anomaly between the 70mm format of the Hasselblad cameras that were supposedly used on the Apollo 11 EVA and the size of the famous Aldrin image (52/55mm) be addressed first, as this is critical to reconciling the distances referred to in the challenge. I suppose this apparent anomaly can be considered a 'fourth dimension' to the challenge! Any ideas, anybody?

[Shrinker]

With regard to the challenge at Post #787, having thought about it further, I think it's important that the seeming anomaly between the 70mm format of the Hasselblad cameras that were supposedly used on the Apollo 11 EVA and the size of the famous Aldrin image (52/55mm) be addressed first, as this is critical to reconciling the distances referred to in the challenge. I suppose this apparent anomaly can be considered a 'fourth dimension' to the challenge! Any ideas, anybody?

Good grief Southwind. Anomaly? are you serious? I already explained to you why the image isn't 70mm. Don't take my word for it - look it up.

[Belz...]

I did have you on ignore, for a while, when you were being completely juvenile.

You're ignoring the totality of evidence that shows, beyond any reasonable doubt, that men walked on the moon, and instead cherry-pick minutiae that you simply don't understand, claim to have accepted the "truth" of it all and then continue to ask inane questions about supposed "anomalies", and I'M being juvenile ?

I'm not waiting for anything, but if you gravitate towards childishness again, which I suspect you will, I suppose I might be tempted.

You know you want to.

Meantime, your inane comments can sometimes hold mild, limited entertainment value

Why, thank you.

if only from a psychological perspective that leaves one pondering over what could possibly motivate you to mix with people of an evidently higher intellect, thereby highlighting your severely limited ability to socialize in an adult environment.

How orgasmic it must have been to write these words. I suspect you truly do have an inferiority complex, so evident is your need to call everybody else stupid. Reminds me of Interesting_Ian.

Your final thought is correct. I don't put people on ignore, though, just because they have no meaningful or constructive contribution to make to this Forum, including you!

That's a very good policy.

Have you ever taken the time to identify the proportion of your posts that serve to develop or enhance a debate?

Nope. Why would I want to do that, anyway ? I'm waaaayyy too busy writing snark comments directed at people who should know better.

You might do well to try it some time, but be prepared then to consider that your time here might be better spent elsewhere!

How I spend my time is none of your business. I'll consider leaving if the posters I have any respect for begin to make the same comments towards me.

[Southwind17]

Good grief Southwind. Anomaly? are you serious? I already explained to you why the image isn't 70mm. Don't take my word for it - look it up.

I read and understood your explanation Shrinker, but felt that the image width difference of 18mm (52mm down from a 70mm film roll width) seemed too large. It's quite a difficult aspect to research, but this wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_perforations) indicates that a loss of 9mm at each side of the film roll is feasible. Therefore, I agree that this doesn't consitute an anomaly, so we're back to the original challenge.

BTW, shouldn't you be out Xmas shopping, or at least wrapping now?! ;)

[Southwind17]

I don't know who, if anybody, is still following this thread, but I plan on posting the challenge at Post #787 as a new thread unless somebody takes it on soon!

[Hindmost]

I don't know who, if anybody, is still following this thread, but I plan on posting the challenge at Post #787 as a new thread unless somebody takes it on soon!

Ahhhhhhhhh what the hades...I will answer your stuff if you respond how the laser ranger that was put on the moon during Apollo 11 is still working and providing distance data over 200 times a year and explain how the dust kicked up by the lunar rovers follows perfect ballistic paths consistent with 1/6 earth gravity and no atmosphere. And finally, how the moon rocks have been dated as older than any rocks on earth.

glenn

[Southwind17]

Ahhhhhhhhh what the hades...I will answer your stuff if you respond how the laser ranger that was put on the moon during Apollo 11 is still working and providing distance data over 200 times a year and explain how the dust kicked up by the lunar rovers follows perfect ballistic paths consistent with 1/6 earth gravity and no atmosphere. And finally, how the moon rocks have been dated as older than any rocks on earth.

glenn

Do you understand why I'm seeking a conclusive reconciliation of the seeming anomaly in the famous Aldrin photo?

[I Am He]

Do you understand why I'm seeking a conclusive reconciliation of the seeming anomaly in the famous Aldrin photo?

err.... Let me guess?? You like all the attention you're getting?? No, you don't believe that anyone walked on the moon, and your doing your everything you can to prove that that is so. Despite the fact that everyone here has proven that you are dead wrong. So please carry on, old boy. You're fooling no one but yourself. By The way, what do I win??

I Am He

[Southwind17]

err.... Let me guess?? You like all the attention you're getting?? No, you don't believe that anyone walked on the moon, and your doing your everything you can to prove that that is so. Despite the fact that everyone here has proven that you are dead wrong. So please carry on, old boy. You're fooling no one but yourself. By The way, what do I win??

I Am He

Anybody who cannot read properly isn't worthy of any prizes, in my opinion! But I would have thought that you might have considered an opportunity to prove yourself capable of making a meaningful contribution as offering sufficient gratitude. Alas!

[CurtC]

I don't know who, if anybody, is still following this thread, but I plan on posting the challenge at Post #787 as a new thread unless somebody takes it on soon!
We did address it, you just seemed to disagree with it, without being very specific.

If you have a point to make, then why don't you do the calculations yourself and then let us review them?

Your point of contention seems to be how far was Aldrin standing away from Armstrong in that photo, and whether you get the same answer by figuring it from the apparent size of Aldrin in the image, or by analyzing the shadows. Now I would expect large errors in trying to base it on the shadows, because you can't tell with any degree of accuracy that the shadow of Aldrin's head lies at the same distance from him as Armstrong, and the slope of the terrain would play a major part in the answer.

But if you feel you can score a point with it, let's see you spell it out.

[Southwind17]

We did address it, you just seemed to disagree with it, without being very specific.

If you have a point to make, then why don't you do the calculations yourself and then let us review them?

Your point of contention seems to be how far was Aldrin standing away from Armstrong in that photo, and whether you get the same answer by figuring it from the apparent size of Aldrin in the image, or by analyzing the shadows. Now I would expect large errors in trying to base it on the shadows, because you can't tell with any degree of accuracy that the shadow of Aldrin's head lies at the same distance from him as Armstrong, and the slope of the terrain would play a major part in the answer.

But if you feel you can score a point with it, let's see you spell it out.

I don't recall anybody even attempting to calculate the distance between the astronauts based on a shadow analysis!

I essentially did do the calculation for the distance between the two astronauts derived from the apparent FOV at Post #764, by way of correction of Thabiguys flawed attempt, and I indicated at Post #787 that this seems wholly inconsistent with the apparent distance as derived from a shadow analysis. I could make some reasonable assumptions, and post a detailed shadow analysis, but I expect that you, and other people like you, would simply retort that the assumptions are wrong. My preference is that you, and anybody else still interested, try the calculations yourself, because I believe that you will quicky realize that for the two distances to reconcile, even adopting very conservative assumptions, the slope of the ground between the two astronauts would have to be significantly different from what can be observed from the photo or otherwise deduced. In fact, I suspect that some people here have already performed the analysis and concluded as much, but elected to keep quiet rather than acknowledge that there does indeed seem to be an unexplainable anomaly.

Given that you have both demonstrated and justified greater confidence in your own analytical and mathematical skills than mine I can think of only one possible outcome if I were to post a detailed calculation. In the interests of drawing a conclusion one way or the other from the Aldrin photo I think it far better that you perform your own analysis, adopting assumptions that you're comfortable with. I'm sure it wouldn't take up very much of your time, and I reckon you'd probably enjoy it too, assuming you haven't had a go already!

Now, if you believe that Thabiguy got it right at 2.7m you've sure got a hell of reconcilitaion task ahead of you with the shadow length!

[Hindmost]

Do you understand why I'm seeking a conclusive reconciliation of the seeming anomaly in the famous Aldrin photo?

No...not if one takes a reasonable optics class--there isn't any anomaly that isn't explainable.

I guess you won't respond to the points reiterated in my post made by several people in this thread. I am sorry, but this indicates you really don't have the desire to address the reasonable data.

Just answer this one:

How come the dust kicked up by the lunar rover's wheels follows perfect ballistic paths consistent with 1/6 earth gravity and no atmosphere?

glenn

[Belz...]

Hindmost, Southwind has accepted that we DID go to the moon. He just thinks that some pictures are anomalous.

How he reconciles the two is beyond me.

[Southwind17]

No...not if one takes a reasonable optics class--there isn't any anomaly that isn't explainable.

Well, either you've taken such a class, and can provide such an explanation, or you haven't, but you know a man who has, who can do so, or you haven't and you don't know anybody else who has (I think that covers all relevant permutations!). Regardless, can we expect an explanation from you any time soon?!

I guess you won't respond to the points reiterated in my post made by several people in this thread. I am sorry, but this indicates you really don't have the desire to address the reasonable data.

It doesn't 'indicate' anything, not least what you think it does. It shows I'm interested in something different from what you think I am, that's all.

Just answer this one:

How come the dust kicked up by the lunar rover's wheels follows perfect ballistic paths consistent with 1/6 earth gravity and no atmosphere?

Probably because those lunar rovers were on a body orbiting the Earth where the gravity is about 1/6 Earth's gravity and there's no atmosphere. You can call it the Moon, if you like! Do you have any other tricky questions you'd like help with?!

Now, shall we get back to photography?! :rolleyes:

[Southwind17]

Hindmost, Southwind has accepted that we DID go to the moon. He just thinks that some pictures are anomalous.

Ah, you've learned to read at last. Congratulations!

How he reconciles the two is beyond me.

You mean to say that you can't imagine a scenario, say, whereby a perfectly doctored image for National Geographic wouldn't be considered the order of the day!

[Thabiguy]

Now, if you believe that Thabiguy got it right at 2.7m you've sure got a hell of reconcilitaion task ahead of you with the shadow length!
Please stop misrepresenting what I said.

I explicitly said that the 2.7m result was wrong and that assuming FOV 49.2 deg, picture width 52 mm and visor width 280 mm, the distance between the camera and Aldrin's visor is about 3 m.
Using the most recent information posted in this thread, i.e. picture width of 55 mm and FOV of 49.25 deg, the distance computes to 3.12 m, as everyone can verify.
I also explicitly said the the distance between the astronauts' feet is different than the distance between the camera and Aldrin's visor. If the distance between the camera and the visor is 3.1 m, the distance between the astronauts' feet can easily be 3.6 m or more. This does not validate Groves' result of 3.85 m, because Groves was attempting to calculate the distance between the camera and Aldrin's visor, not the distance between the astronauts' feet.

This simple fact also renders this note of yours:
That puts it at 4m. This is not overly inconsistent with Groves' 3.85m!
as pure nonsense, as yet again you ignore that Groves' result does not refer to the distance between the astronauts' feet, which is the distance that you attempted to derive from the shadow.

Regardless of whether you deliberately try to mislead others, or whether you simply have trouble understanding what I have now emphasized for the third time, I would appreciate if you kept your misrepresentations out of my mouth. Thank you.

[Southwind17]

Please stop misrepresenting what I said.

I explicitly said that the 2.7m result was wrong and that assuming FOV 49.2 deg, picture width 52 mm and visor width 280 mm, the distance between the camera and Aldrin's visor is about 3 m.
Using the most recent information posted in this thread, i.e. picture width of 55 mm and FOV of 49.25 deg, the distance computes to 3.12 m, as everyone can verify.
I also explicitly said the the distance between the astronauts' feet is different than the distance between the camera and Aldrin's visor. If the distance between the camera and the visor is 3.1 m, the distance between the astronauts' feet can easily be 3.6 m or more. This does not validate Groves' result of 3.85 m, because Groves was attempting to calculate the distance between the camera and Aldrin's visor, not the distance between the astronauts' feet.

This simple fact also renders this note of yours:

as pure nonsense, as yet again you ignore that Groves' result does not refer to the distance between the astronauts' feet, which is the distance that you attempted to derive from the shadow.

Regardless of whether you deliberately try to mislead others, or whether you simply have trouble understanding what I have now emphasized for the third time, I would appreciate if you kept your misrepresentations out of my mouth. Thank you.

Hey, great to see you're still showing an interest Thabiguy. I apologize if I've misrepresented you. I can assure you it wasn't intentional, but nonetheless 2.7m vs 3.1m is neither here nor there so far as the seeming anomaly goes. As for distance between the camera and Aldrin's feet - remind me please - what relevance has that to anything?

So, if I understand you correctly Thabiguy, you're saying that Groves, at 3.85m between camera and visor, is way over the top. In other words, the two astronauts were standing significantly closer than 3.85m. OK, I'm good with that, so why don't you just go on ahead now and reconcile that with the shadow length, or is the 'uncertainty' over the shadow length because of the many, incalculable unknowns simply a non-starter?!

[Hindmost]

Hindmost, Southwind has accepted that we DID go to the moon. He just thinks that some pictures are anomalous.

How he reconciles the two is beyond me.

I have read that but I guess I interpreted it as Southwind still having doubts and not really believing 100%.

glenn

[Thabiguy]

Hey, great to see you're still showing an interest Thabiguy.
I still have no desire to post here; I only resort to it when it seems really necessary. You shouldn't take this as a sign that I am going to participate. Nevertheless, in response to your direct inquiries, I will clarify:
As for distance between the camera and Aldrin's feet - remind me please - what relevance has that to anything?
It's not the distance between the camera and Aldrin's feet, it's the distance between the astronauts' feet: between Armstrong's feet and Aldrin's feet. If you're going to do an estimate based on apparent shadow length (starting from one astronaut's feet) compared to where another astronaut appears to be standing (with his feet), you are estimating the distance between their feet.
So, if I understand you correctly Thabiguy, you're saying that Groves, at 3.85m between camera and visor, is way over the top.
Yes.
In other words, the two astronauts were standing significantly closer than 3.85m.
No. If you're talking about where the two astronauts are standing, with their feet, I believe that distance, considering that they are leaning forward and the camera protrudes forward even further, can easily be 3.6 m or more. I cannot call this significantly closer than 3.85 m.
why don't you just go on ahead now and reconcile that with the shadow length, or is the 'uncertainty' over the shadow length because of the many, incalculable unknowns simply a non-starter?!
The latter is the case. The reflection in the visor (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11-5903aldrin-view.jpg) is way too distorted to draw meaningful conclusions about objects' relative positions. To illustrate, when one looks at the reflection in the visor (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11-5903aldrin-view.jpg), it seems unambiguous that when one takes the line connecting the two module pads visible in the reflection, the SWC experiment (the rightmost vertical object) is on the same side of that line as Armstrong, and on the opposite side than Aldrin and the sun. From looking at the reflection, it seems inconceivable for the SWC experiment to be on the same side of that line as Aldrin, and on the opposite side than Armstrong. And yet, that is actually the case (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5873.jpg). What seems clear and unambiguous may not be true, due to the extreme spherical distortion of the reflection, which is greater than one might suspect.

Although the shadow seems to fall near Armstrong, we know that the angle between the optical axis and the shadow is greater than 25 degrees (because shadows near the right border of the whole photograph still fall to the left). Quick and dirty estimate of the actual shadow deviation, if it appears about 30% from the center of the visor towards its edge, gives some 35 degrees (a rough figure, not intended to be exact). Assuming 35 degrees of deviation, assuming distance 3.6 m between the astronauts' feet, the shadow would need to be 4.4 m long for its tip to fall directly to Armstrong's left, where it would be some 2.5 m away from Armstrong, not 1.5 m. If Aldrin is 1.9 m tall, the sun elevation is 15 degrees and the terrain slope is 5 degrees, his shadow would be about 5.2 m, or reaching further 0.8 m behind Armstrong's left. Would that be consistent with the reflection in the visor? I sure can't say that it would be inconsistent, which makes me uninterested in your challenge.

If I wanted to do a proper shadow analysis, I would start with properly accounting for the spherical distortion of the visor (after properly accounting for the distortion caused by the visor being near the upper edge of the photograph). To answer your question of why I'm not going to do that: because I honestly don't see the point of spending all that effort.

[I Am He]

Anybody who cannot read properly isn't worthy of any prizes, in my opinion!

So far your opinions have not held any water.







But I would have thought that you might have considered an opportunity to prove yourself capable of making a meaningful contribution as offering sufficient gratitude. Alas!

I will gladly make a meaningful contribution as soon as you do. So far none of your so called meaningful contributions have been right. As a matter of fact they have been all wrong.

Oh? about my reading properly: "I apologize if I've misrepresented you." So please stop acting like a little boy and stop with those immature remarks of yours.

[Southwind17]

It's not the distance between the camera and Aldrin's feet, it's the distance between the astronauts' feet: between Armstrong's feet and Aldrin's feet. If you're going to do an estimate based on apparent shadow length (starting from one astronaut's feet) compared to where another astronaut appears to be standing (with his feet), you are estimating the distance between their feet.

OK, let's start with your 3.12m between camera and visor, and assume it's correct. Allowing for, say, 150mm increase per astronaut for forward leaning and, say, 100mm for the camera projection (only as far forward as the imaging plane), that puts the astronauts' feet at something around 3.5m apart, give or take.

... so why don't you just go on ahead now and reconcile that with the shadow length, or is the 'uncertainty' over the shadow length because of the many, incalculable unknowns simply a non-starter?!
The latter is the case. The reflection in the visor (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11-5903aldrin-view.jpg) is way too distorted to draw meaningful conclusions about objects' relative positions. To illustrate, when one looks at the reflection in the visor (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11-5903aldrin-view.jpg), it seems unambiguous that when one takes the line connecting the two module pads visible in the reflection, the SWC experiment (the rightmost vertical object) is on the same side of that line as Armstrong, and on the opposite side than Aldrin and the sun. From looking at the reflection, it seems inconceivable for the SWC experiment to be on the same side of that line as Aldrin, and on the opposite side than Armstrong. And yet, that is actually the case (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5873.jpg). What seems clear and unambiguous may not be true, due to the extreme spherical distortion of the reflection, which is greater than one might suspect.

I agree that the spherical distortion of the visors poses major optical problems, and I thank you for illustrating how extreme this can be. In fact, this photo (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5873.jpg) , that you posted, makes the point equally well. When I first looked at the reflection in Aldrin's visor in this shot I thought it looked extremely odd, in particular the directions that the shadows follow across the visor compared to the directions across the ground. The more you study and analyse them, though, the more they make sense. I'm actually very pleased that you posted this photo, for reasons I'll come on to in a moment.

Having said all that, whilst relative positions of objects can be very difficult to establish just from studying a reflected image in the visor, what's not so difficult is when two objects, or reflections, coincide, or come very close to coinciding, as the distortion then becomes irrelevant. Let's take another look at this photo (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11-5903aldrin-view.jpg), for example (I note that this image is presented as a mirror image of the orginal, for some reason, possibly to re-create the image of Armstrong as if looking from Aldrin. I will continue to comment based on the original imagery). We can clearly see that Armstrong's right foot is planted very close to, if not right on, the intersection of the shadow of the LM strut and the broader shadow of another part of the LM that runs roughly perpendicular, forming a 'T'. We can actually clearly identify that position on this photo (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5873.jpg) to within a few cm each way; the broader shadow being roughly the length of Armstrong's boot.

Fortuitously, I believe we can also identify reasonably accurately from the same photo the position where Aldrin was actually standing. We can see from the famous Aldrin photo (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903.jpg) that Aldrin is standing about a metre or so back from the Lunar Surface Sensing Probe (LSSP), and that he's standing in an obvious indentation, with his right foot fairly centrally planted within it and his left on the slope, close to a small rock. If we go back to this photo (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5873.jpg) we can identify the indentation immediately to the left of the SWC as we look at the photo, level with a distance about 1/4 the distance up the SWC pole. The cross-hair reticule immediately to the left of the SWC marks an edge of the indentation. I believe the small rock/shadow is actually identifiable midway between the said reticule and a position about 1/4 distance up the SWC pole. Luckily, this photo was taken with the camera aiming very close to perpendicular to the line between Armstrong and Aldrin in the famous Aldrin photo, so we can take relative measurements directly from the photo without worrying unduly about inaccuracy due to perspective.

Now, taking the landing pads as 940mm diameter, as identified from this article (http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/membersonly/oct00/features/onesmall/onesmall.html), we have a quantified reference point. Going back to this photo (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5873.jpg), we can measure the diameter of the foremost landing pad as 21mm, which we know sits right next to the line between the two astronauts in the famous Aldrin photo. The distance between the mid-point of the 'T' shadow where Armstrong was standing, as identified above, and the position within the indentation where Aldrin's right foot was planted, also identified above, as measured from the photo is about 115mm. 115mm / 21mm x 940mm = 5.2m.

Now, in planning on reminding ourselves what the shadow analysis would derive, I realize I've made a grave error previously. In focusing on the image reflected in Aldrin's visor I mistakenly took Armstrong to be standing up-sun of Aldrin, whereas he was actually standing down-sun. This would, of course, given a downward slope in the lunar surface away from Aldrin towards Armstrong, give the effect of lengthening Aldrin's shadow and not shortening it, as I've previously assumed (I'm surprised nobody's picked this up, and pointed it out; or am I?! :rolleyes:). So, let's recalculate the ball-park distance as derived from a shadow analysis:

An astronaut standing 1900mm tall overall on a level lunar surface with a 15-degree sun angle would cast a shadow 7.1m long. Let's reduce Aldrin's overall height by, say, 300mm to allow for both the depth of the indentation in which he's standing (say 250mm) and a reduction due to forward leaning (say 50mm). That reduces the shadow length to around 6m. And let's assume an upward slope of, say, 3 degrees (we can see from this photo (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5873.jpg) that the lunar surface appears to slope upwards from right to left, given that Aldrin's forward-facing body is clearly very close to the true vertical, and we can measure that slope by reference to the three cross-hair reticules towards the upper left of the photo (the vertical lines of which are parallel to the near-true vertical plane in which Aldrin is standing, so the horizontal lines of which must be very close to the true horizontal) as around 4mm in 73mm, i.e. 3 degrees). So, allowing for a reduced equivalent sun angle of 12 degrees instead of the actual 15 degrees gives us a compensating increase in the shadow length to 7.5m.

It would seem, therefore, that the actual distance between the two astronauts on the famous Aldrin photo lies somewhere within the range 5.2-7.5m. Whilst that's a large range, it's wholly inconsistent and entirely irreconcilable with the 3.5m calculated from the FOV above. Having identified this it seems more and more obvious, just by casually studying the famous Aldrin photo, that the position where Armstrong was really standing to take the photo, as determined by the position of the LM landing pad in the bottom of the photo, and the apparent distance away of Aldrin, that he most certainly was not standing where he is shown to be in the reflection. i.e. at the intersection of the 'T' shadow of the LM landing strut. A casual glance at this photo (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5873.jpg) clearly confirms that to be the case, especially when you bear in mind that the image centre of Armstrong's camera was aiming well below Aldrin's right knee, which would have taken in far more of the lunar surface between Armstrong and the LM LSSP than the roughly two boot-lengths that we see in the famous photo.

In closing this particular post, there is one related anomaly that might well serve to contradict everything I've written above, but which, if so, raises similar questions:

Looking again at this photo (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5873.jpg), the relative lengths of the SWC pole extending below the fabric to the lunar surface and the shadow cast by that section of pole are 5mm and 6mm. Assuming a flat lunar surface that would require a sun angle of 40 degrees. In order for what we observe to be consistent with the actual sun angle of 15 degrees the ground would need to slope upwards in the direction of the shadow, i.e. in the opposite direction to the general slope of the lunar surface(!), at an angle of around 25 degrees (40-15), or steeper than 1:2! That is most definitely not the case, so we can only conclude that the 'sun angle' was far nearer to 40 degrees than 15 degrees. What could possibly account for that?!

[Southwind17]

So far your opinions have not held any water.

Should they?

I will gladly make a meaningful contribution as soon as you do. So far none of your so called meaningful contributions have been right. As a matter of fact they have been all wrong.

Contributions don't need to be right to be meaningful, provided they lead to something fruitful. Irrespective, I'd challenge you to show that they have all been wrong, but you neither could, nor, I suspect, would you have the wherewithall to attempt to do so, so I'll refrain.

Oh? about my reading properly: "I apologize if I've misrepresented you." So please stop acting like a little boy and stop with those immature remarks of yours.

I'm inclined to point out to you that there's a fundamental difference between reading properly and misinterpreting, but you're clearly prone to misinterpretation yourself, evidently, so, again, I'll refrain.

I sense you're an infant school teacher. Would that be correct?!

[Belz...]

Ah, you've learned to read at last. Congratulations!

I understood you the first time. Now, what does that say about YOUR reading abilities ?

You mean to say that you can't imagine a scenario, say, whereby a perfectly doctored image for National Geographic wouldn't be considered the order of the day!

:rolleyes:

[Southwind17]

Personal attacks removed. Will you all please stop with the personal comments and stick to the issues under discussion..

[Thabiguy]

I know I am going to regret this, but I will respond one more time. Of course, I realize that it is a waste of time, as we've all seen that showing the silly claims wrong over and over and over and over and over again does not have the slightest effect, and intelligent readers of course understand that lack of experience with photography is not evidence for conspiracy. Even so, I will carry on with this waste of time once more, knowing full well that the next Southwind17's post will claim yet another irreconcilable anomaly. Of course it will.
Having said all that, whilst relative positions of objects can be very difficult to establish just from studying a reflected image in the visor, what's not so difficult is when two objects, or reflections, coincide, or come very close to coinciding, as the distortion then becomes irrelevant.
Correct.
We can clearly see that Armstrong's right foot is planted very close to, if not right on, the intersection of the shadow of the LM strut and the broader shadow of another part of the LM that runs roughly perpendicular, forming a 'T'.
We can do a little more than that. If we look carefully at Armstrong's left foot (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11-5903aldrin-view.jpg), we see that his leg does not end where the bright white of the spacesuit ends; it continues further down with his gray boot. It may be difficult to see, depending on the contrast of your monitor; the shadow of Armstrong's left foot will help you find it, originating from below the bright white part.
The same boot is of course also on Armstrong's right foot, meaning that he does not stand where the bright white ends (the center of the 'T'), but below that point, or closer to the sun. The right boot is not sufficiently discernible though, and all we can do is guess, using the picture of the other boot for reference, but it would seem that Armstrong's right foot is somewhere on the boundary of light and shadow (of the LM leg), slightly closer to the pad than the shadow 'T', but still close to the 'T'.
Of course, the perspective greatly compresses the shadows vertically, so it is difficult to say how much closer Armstrong's right foot is to the pad than the strut shadow.
I'm going to take a shot and say that in 5873 (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5873.jpg), Armstrong stood approximately where the LM leg shadow goes thick just before it meets the strut shadow. That would be slightly closer to the pad than the shadow 'T', but still close to the 'T'. Lacking more accurate information, I guess this estimate is as good as any.
Fortuitously, I believe we can also identify reasonably accurately from the same photo the position where Aldrin was actually standing. We can see from the famous Aldrin photo (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903.jpg) that Aldrin is standing about a metre or so back from the Lunar Surface Sensing Probe (LSSP), and that he's standing in an obvious indentation, with his right foot fairly centrally planted within it and his left on the slope, close to a small rock. If we go back to this photo (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5873.jpg) we can identify the indentation immediately to the left of the SWC as we look at the photo, level with a distance about 1/4 the distance up the SWC pole. The cross-hair reticule immediately to the left of the SWC marks an edge of the indentation. I believe the small rock/shadow is actually identifiable midway between the said reticule and a position about 1/4 distance up the SWC pole.
Correct.
Luckily, this photo was taken with the camera aiming very close to perpendicular to the line between Armstrong and Aldrin in the famous Aldrin photo, so we can take relative measurements directly from the photo without worrying unduly about inaccuracy due to perspective.
For the sake of the argument, all right, let's assume that it's perpendicular and the perspective distortion is relatively small. The properties of rectilinear projection then allow us to directly scale sizes.
Now, taking the landing pads as 940mm diameter, as identified from this article (http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/membersonly/oct00/features/onesmall/onesmall.html), we have a quantified reference point. Going back to this photo (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5873.jpg), we can measure the diameter of the foremost landing pad as 21mm, which we know sits right next to the line between the two astronauts in the famous Aldrin photo.
The width of the landing pad on the original transparency is 5.61 mm. But the landing pad is not directly between Armstrong and Aldrin (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903.jpg). The end of the rod protruding from under it is about on the line between Armstrong and Aldrin.
So how far is the landing pad from the line connecting Armstrong and Aldrin? There are some good closeups of the pad and the rod (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5917.jpg), but the perspective distortion makes it difficult to estimate the distance. I decided to use 5902 (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5902.jpg) to estimate that, given 94 cm landing pad diameter, the distance of the center of the landing pad from the line between Armstrong and Aldrin is about 130 cm, give or take a few cm.
Now, how far is the landing pad from the camera in 5873 (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5873.jpg)? Assuming FOV 49.25 deg, picture width 55 mm, the measured width of 5.61 mm of an object that is 94 cm wide corresponds to distance of about 10.1 m.
Now comes the important question: how wide would the landing pad be on the transparency, if it was directly on the line between Armstrong and Aldrin, i.e. 8.8 m from the camera, instead of 10.1 m? Our earlier assumptions allow us to make a straightforward calculation: it would be 6.44 mm wide.
The distance between the mid-point of the 'T' shadow where Armstrong was standing, as identified above, and the position within the indentation where Aldrin's right foot was planted, also identified above, as measured from the photo is about 115mm. 115mm / 21mm x 940mm = 5.2m.
The distance between the point where we assumed Armstrong to be standing and the rock in Aldrin's crater is some 24.5-25.5 mm on the transparency, depending on how we choose to measure. 24.5-25.5 mm / 6.44 mm x 94 cm = 3.58 - 3.72 m.
Now, in planning on reminding ourselves what the shadow analysis would derive, I realize I've made a grave error previously. In focusing on the image reflected in Aldrin's visor I mistakenly took Armstrong to be standing up-sun of Aldrin, whereas he was actually standing down-sun. This would, of course, given a downward slope in the lunar surface away from Aldrin towards Armstrong,
The lunar surface is sloped upward from Aldrin to Armstrong. Armstrong is standing higher than Aldrin.
give the effect of lengthening Aldrin's shadow and not shortening it, as I've previously assumed (I'm surprised nobody's picked this up, and pointed it out; or am I?! :rolleyes:).
The reason why nobody "picked this up" is because it is nonsense.
(we can see from this photo (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5873.jpg) that the lunar surface appears to slope upwards from right to left,
No, we do not. What we see "sloping upwards" is the horizon. Horizon (if there are no nearby mountains) is approximately horizontal. Even Groves knows that. The horizon is "sloping upwards" because the camera is tilted. You can see the horizon continue on the right side of the module (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5872.jpg). Here you see it continue further to the right (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5874.jpg); the camera is not tilted this time.
given that Aldrin's forward-facing body is clearly very close to the true vertical,
Aldrin is standing generally upright, slightly leaning to his right.
and we can measure that slope by reference to the three cross-hair reticules towards the upper left of the photo (the vertical lines of which are parallel to the near-true vertical plane in which Aldrin is standing, so the horizontal lines of which must be very close to the true horizontal) as around 4mm in 73mm, i.e. 3 degrees).

Yes, the camera is tilted about 3 degrees.
So, allowing for a reduced equivalent sun angle of 12 degrees instead of the actual 15 degrees gives us a compensating increase in the shadow length to 7.5m.
Pure nonsense.
It would seem, therefore, that the actual distance between the two astronauts on the famous Aldrin photo lies somewhere within the range 5.2-7.5m. Whilst that's a large range, it's wholly inconsistent and entirely irreconcilable with the 3.5m calculated from the FOV above.
The last sentence is, ironically, correct.
Having identified this it seems more and more obvious, just by casually studying the famous Aldrin photo, that the position where Armstrong was really standing to take the photo, as determined by the position of the LM landing pad in the bottom of the photo, and the apparent distance away of Aldrin, that he most certainly was not standing where he is shown to be in the reflection. i.e. at the intersection of the 'T' shadow of the LM landing strut.
Baseless assertion.
A casual glance at this photo (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5873.jpg) clearly confirms that to be the case, especially when you bear in mind that the image centre of Armstrong's camera was aiming well below Aldrin's right knee, which would have taken in far more of the lunar surface between Armstrong and the LM LSSP than the roughly two boot-lengths that we see in the famous photo.
Baseless assertion.
Looking again at this photo (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5873.jpg), the relative lengths of the SWC pole extending below the fabric to the lunar surface and the shadow cast by that section of pole are 5mm and 6mm. Assuming a flat lunar surface that would require a sun angle of 40 degrees. In order for what we observe to be consistent with the actual sun angle of 15 degrees the ground would need to slope upwards in the direction of the shadow, i.e. in the opposite direction to the general slope of the lunar surface(!), at an angle of around 25 degrees (40-15), or steeper than 1:2! That is most definitely not the case, so we can only conclude that the 'sun angle' was far nearer to 40 degrees than 15 degrees. What could possibly account for that?!
I will leave this one as an exercise to the readers. (Hint (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5916.jpg).)

[Southwind17]

We can do a little more than that. If we look carefully at Armstrong's left foot (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11-5903aldrin-view.jpg), we see that his leg does not end where the bright white of the spacesuit ends; it continues further down with his gray boot. It may be difficult to see, depending on the contrast of your monitor; the shadow of Armstrong's left foot will help you find it, originating from below the bright white part.
The same boot is of course also on Armstrong's right foot, meaning that he does not stand where the bright white ends (the center of the 'T'), but below that point, or closer to the sun. The right boot is not sufficiently discernible though, and all we can do is guess, using the picture of the other boot for reference, but it would seem that Armstrong's right foot is somewhere on the boundary of light and shadow (of the LM leg), slightly closer to the pad than the shadow 'T', but still close to the 'T'.
Of course, the perspective greatly compresses the shadows vertically, so it is difficult to say how much closer Armstrong's right foot is to the pad than the strut shadow.
I'm going to take a shot and say that in 5873 (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5873.jpg), Armstrong stood approximately where the LM leg shadow goes thick just before it meets the strut shadow. That would be slightly closer to the pad than the shadow 'T', but still close to the 'T'. Lacking more accurate information, I guess this estimate is as good as any.

I agree with this.

For the sake of the argument, all right, let's assume that it's perpendicular and the perspective distortion is relatively small. The properties of rectilinear projection then allow us to directly scale sizes.

The width of the landing pad on the original transparency is 5.61 mm. But the landing pad is not directly between Armstrong and Aldrin (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903.jpg). The end of the rod protruding from under it is about on the line between Armstrong and Aldrin.
So how far is the landing pad from the line connecting Armstrong and Aldrin? There are some good closeups of the pad and the rod (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5917.jpg), but the perspective distortion makes it difficult to estimate the distance. I decided to use 5902 (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5902.jpg) to estimate that, given 94 cm landing pad diameter, the distance of the center of the landing pad from the line between Armstrong and Aldrin is about 130 cm, give or take a few cm.

I can accept this.

Now, how far is the landing pad from the camera in 5873 (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5873.jpg)? Assuming FOV 49.25 deg, picture width 55 mm, the measured width of 5.61 mm of an object that is 94 cm wide corresponds to distance of about 10.1 m.
Now comes the important question: how wide would the landing pad be on the transparency, if it was directly on the line between Armstrong and Aldrin, i.e. 8.8 m from the camera, instead of 10.1 m? Our earlier assumptions allow us to make a straightforward calculation: it would be 6.44 mm wide.

The distance between the point where we assumed Armstrong to be standing and the rock in Aldrin's crater is some 24.5-25.5 mm on the transparency, depending on how we choose to measure. 24.5-25.5 mm / 6.44 mm x 94 cm = 3.58 - 3.72 m.

Well, this methodology does seem to stack up, at least to a degree, but I'll consider it further tomorrow and get back to you with my comments. In the meantime, have you tried verifying your calculated distance by reference to the height of Aldrin in that same photo?

The lunar surface is sloped upward from Aldrin to Armstrong. Armstrong is standing higher than Aldrin.

On what basis have you established this - because it has to slope that way in order for Groves' analysis to be wrong? Try this: place a straight edge between the rock that was close to Aldrin's left foot and the position where we're agreed that Armstrong's right foot was placed. You will see that it's pretty close to parallel with the horizon. Where's the 'slope'? If anything, it slopes downwards towards Armstrong slightly, which is consistent with your comment that Aldrin is 'slightly leaning to his right', i.e. leaning 'into' the slope, as one does!

The reason why nobody "picked this up" is because it is nonsense.

Yes, it seems equally as nonsensical as your assertion that the ground slopes the opposite way now, doesn't it!

No, we do not. What we see "sloping upwards" is the horizon. Horizon (if there are no nearby mountains) is approximately horizontal. Even Groves knows that. The horizon is "sloping upwards" because the camera is tilted. You can see the horizon continue on the right side of the module (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5872.jpg). Here you see it continue further to the right (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5874.jpg); the camera is not tilted this time.

Aldrin is standing generally upright, slightly leaning to his right.

See above.

Baseless assertion.

No, I didn't expect much in the way of a meaningful response to this obvious anomaly!

Baseless assertion.

Ditto.

I will leave this one as an exercise to the readers. (Hint (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5916.jpg).)

Well I get this image deriving a sun angle around 23 degrees. What do you get?

[Hindmost]

Well, either you've taken such a class, and can provide such an explanation, or you haven't, but you know a man who has, who can do so, or you haven't and you don't know anybody else who has (I think that covers all relevant permutations!). Regardless, can we expect an explanation from you any time soon?!

I have taken optics classes and could do the associated analysis. However, I am not going to waste my time doing more detailed calcs as there is no real purpose.


It doesn't 'indicate' anything, not least what you think it does. It shows I'm interested in something different from what you think I am, that's all.

To what end??? That is what confuses me.

Probably because those lunar rovers were on a body orbiting the Earth where the gravity is about 1/6 Earth's gravity and there's no atmosphere. You can call it the Moon, if you like! Do you have any other tricky questions you'd like help with?!

Not meant to be tricky...its just the fact that the moon rover was actually on the moon. Makes all the CT stuff moot.

Now, shall we get back to photography?! :rolleyes:

again...to what end? Are you expecting to invalidate the entire collection of pictures with one photo?


glenn

[Southwind17]

OK guys, I've considered the photos posted by Thabiguy further, and after the cunning deployment of a few carefully placed Post-it notes, a high-school ruler and protractor I am now entirely satisfied that all of the apparent anomalies previously identifed are fully explainable.

Thanks for hanging around Thabiguy, I believe our stand-off is now ended, and I'll happily concede that you're the sharp-shooter in this particular town!

Now, where's my horse?! ;)