Jump to content
The Education Forum

Faked Apollo Photos


Duane Daman

Recommended Posts

This is a study on Aulis describing one of the faked Apollo photographs .... It shows the photo as NASA made it , and then a comparison of what the shadow in the photo should have looked like if the apparent Whistle-Blowers had not been at work .

" And finally here is another example of what can only be described as a thoroughly phoney photograph, allegedly taken on the Moon. This Apollo 14 image (see pic 10) shows an astronaut walking towards the left of frame.

10. AS14-64-9089 as published by NASA.

fakery10.jpg

So what is wrong with pic 10? As a representation of the astronaut’s legs and body, the ‘matchstick’ shadow effect is both inadequate and inaccurate. While the amount of light on the side of the body nearest the camera and furthest away from the Sun (which is out of frame to the left) is far too adequate, while equally inaccurate!

In other words, the astronaut has a totally disproportionate amount of light filling him in on his shadow side. It is important to remember the total blackness of the shadow side of the rocks in Apollo images of the lunar surface.

The light filling in the dark side of the astronaut is reflected off the surface itself. There's nothing disproportionate about it. If you look at the high res scans of that image, you can clearly see rocks and other small details inside the shadow, it is not total blackness. The long shadows of his legs are simply because his shadow is on a slope, not flat ground, therefore it's greatly elongated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 144
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well no Duane I'm not claiming that at all. Photographic EXPOSURE of film happens in the camera, not the darkroom. It is a combination shutter speed and f-stop and any number of combination sof these allow a percise amount of light to reach the film a create the latent image.

Next time you might want to bone up on the subject you are attempting to discuss so you don't look comletely foolish when you open your mouth.

The shadows in the Apollo image you posted look totally perfect. That you find them odd is only a reflection on you utter lack of knowlege about how these things work.

I suggest you quite reading the misinformation posted by the likes of White and Percy and open your eyes to the real world. Your shadow problems can be eliminated by simply walking outside on a sunny day and observing the interpaly of light and shadow that is all around you. No caamera required, just a pair of eyes, an open mind and a willingness to actually learn. It would sure be a step up from yur current state of blindly following the mistakes of others and not even knowing why they are pullin gh woll over your eyes.

I am reading a lot of smoke and mirrors here but nothing that could be interpreted as any kind of real rebuttal .. Unless one thinks your typical "your so ignorant about photography " speech is a real rebuttal .

Kevin claimed that the shadows were black because of being underexposed .... I thought he meant that the photos were underexposed in the dark room ... No big deal .... I say that some of the astronot's shadows are solid black because they were faked either by being pasted in the photo or filled in with black , as no shadow ( not even on the Moon ) would ever be solid black .. Can you prove otherwise ?

You are making the claim that the astronot shadow in the photo in question is '"totally perfect" , yet you haven't supplied any evidence as to why it is "totally perfect " .

You have also made the incorrect claim that White and Percy have produced "misinformation " ... Yet you haven't backed up that false claim either I see .

The corrected photo that Percy supplied is what the astronot's shadow would have looked like had the photo been real ... and the original "match stick leg" nasa photo is a fake .

So from what I've seen , you have no proof to back up your nonsense here ... but rather only a load of BS and bluff .

Edited by Duane Daman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The long shadows of his legs are simply because his shadow is on a slope, not flat ground, therefore it's greatly elongated.

Oh dear God , not another SLOPE !!

The ground is level ... He is not walking on a slope .. but it's not the elongated part that's the problem .. It's the fact that the postion of the astronot doesn't match the position of the shadow .

Hey , I wonder if Dave has run off to the beach to take some more pictures of shadows ... :up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well no Duane I'm not claiming that at all. Photographic EXPOSURE of film happens in the camera, not the darkroom. It is a combination shutter speed and f-stop and any number of combination sof these allow a percise amount of light to reach the film a create the latent image.

Next time you might want to bone up on the subject you are attempting to discuss so you don't look comletely foolish when you open your mouth.

The shadows in the Apollo image you posted look totally perfect. That you find them odd is only a reflection on you utter lack of knowlege about how these things work.

I suggest you quite reading the misinformation posted by the likes of White and Percy and open your eyes to the real world. Your shadow problems can be eliminated by simply walking outside on a sunny day and observing the interpaly of light and shadow that is all around you. No caamera required, just a pair of eyes, an open mind and a willingness to actually learn. It would sure be a step up from yur current state of blindly following the mistakes of others and not even knowing why they are pullin gh woll over your eyes.

I am reading a lot of smoke and mirrors here but nothing that could be interpreted as any kind of real rebuttal .. Unless one thinks your typical "your so ignorant about photography " speech is a real rebuttal .

Kevin claimed that the shadows were black because of being underexposed .... I thought he meant that the photos were underexposed in the dark room ...No big deal .... I say that some of the astronot's shadows are solid black because they were faked either by being pasted in the photo or filled in with black , as no shadow ( not even on the Moon ) would ever be solid black .. Can you prove otherwise ?

You are making the claim that the astronot shadow in the photo in question is '"totally perfect" , yet you haven't supplied any evidence as to why it is "totally perfect " .

You have also made the incorrect claim that White and Percy have produced "misinformation " ... Yet you haven't backed up that false claim either I see .

The corrected photo that Percy supplied is what the astronot's shadow would have looked like had the photo been real ... and the original "match stick leg" nasa photo is a fake .

So from what I've seen , you have no proof to back up your nonsense here ... but rather only a load of BS and bluff .

Lets start backwards since you can't seem to understand forwards.

Duane, the proof I have offered is in the world around you. For you to understand the truth YOU need to find it. That means if you want to continue to debate issues of photography you are going to need some actual knowledge of the subject. If you continue to parrot the nonsense foisted upon you by the likes of Percy or White (and notice White runs away when shoved into a corner and Percy will not leave the safety of his forum to debate in the open...wonder why?) You will NEVER understand WHY you are wrong. Its pretty clear you have very few skills in subject of photography, and just about the same when it comes to the study of light and shadow. YOU NEED THIS KNOWLEGE TO UNDERSTAND THE SUBJECT. Without it how could you ever know who is right and who is wrong? Learning photography is easy, there are many excellent books available to help you along. If you really are in search of the truth about the Apollo lunar photography you will need this knowledge to find it. I'm not going to be able to get through to you and you will not know if the likes of Percy and White are telling you the truth until you understand the material. Its as simple as that. And until the day comes that you actually learn the material yourself and begin simple task of testing this stuff, you are just peeing on your own foot.

Next you claim that Percy has correctly "corrected" the photo in question. Why do you claim this? ON what do you (or Percy) base this claim? (remember we are working backwards) You have asked for proof to debunk this yet you offer no proof why the image you are parroting from Percy’s site is correct, you are just asking us to take it on faith that Percy is correct. (which is a huge leap given his total failure in the offset shadow issue) So when you can offer us some evidence that the "corrected" image you posted is how it should be, then we can talk.

I'm going to give you a few hint to get you started. View the world around you. Actually TAKE THE TIME to study light and shadow. Its free, and the subject matter is available to you ANYTIME the sun is shining ( and you can actually learn a few things about the QUALITY of light on a cloudy day) Very few people actually SEE what is happening around them when it comes to light and shadow. I make my living by recreating lighting effects that are found in nature, in my studio. I know how it works because I STUDY IT EVERY DAY! You can too.

Shadow width. Just look around. For example yesterday (late afternoon similar sun angle as the Apollo photo in question) I took my dog Mac for a walk. Heading down the sidewalk going south, I spotted a very large tree down the block, casting a shadow across the sidewalk. From 25 feet away the shadow of this tree was very narrow, just like the legs of the astronaut in the posted photo. As I walked closer the shadow began to widen a bit, but I actually had to stand RIGHT OVER THE SHADOW and look at it from the top to see the real full width. This is simply perspective in action.

Reflected light. Like shadows most laymen don't have a good feel for the power of reflected light. In the image in question the 'shadow side" of the astronaut is being illuminated by light reflecting off of the surface. The closer to the surface the less fill light reaches the astronauts suit, the higher up the more reflected light reaches the suit. All of this is seen in the photo in question. So I can hear you now...its reflected light, it can't do that much! Look at these examples of the power of reflected light.

In this one I illuminated it with ALL reflected light, no direct light was used on the car at all. Notice the shape of the highlights on the side of the car ( the white-ish area). Since the car is in effect a mirror, what you are seeing is the actual shape of the light source, in this case an 18'h x 60'l wall with lights aimed into it. THIS IS IMPORTANT!

crusier.jpg

Next lets look at a "mirror" in the Apollo photograph. This is a crop from the high res scan and it shows us a chrome snap on the suit. Being a mirror it reflects the actual shape of the light source, in this case the SURFACE OF THE MOON! Also notice that the shadows in this crop are at the TOP of the objects, which indicate that the direction of the light is from the bottom of the frame, in this case the lunar surface.

snaps.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice lecture on photography ... Thanks .

I'm not concerned about the reflected light on the astronot or the elongated shadows ... What is anomalous is the shape and position of the shadow which does not match the shape and position of the astronot who is allegedly creating it .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice lecture on photography ... Thanks .

I'm not concerned about the reflected light on the astronot or the elongated shadows ... What is anomalous is the shape and position of the shadow which does not match the shape and position of the astronot who is allegedly creating it .

Well Duane until you have some basis for understanding how light, shadow and perspective works, you cannot make ANY claim as to what is anomalous or not.

That was the entire point of my post. It appears lost on you.

You are again simply parroting he words of others without the knowlege to see if the words are correct. I've pointed you towards a path that, given some time, might allow to to make statements on the subject that will merit consideration. Right now your statments are simply trash. The choice is yours. How you proceed will be very telling indeed.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of your points were lost on me ... I agree with you about the reflected light and the elongated shadows .

But so far you have NOT offered any photographic evidence which would show why the shape and position of the shadow does not match that of the subject suppossedly causing it .

The astronot is turned to the side with one leg raised as he walks ... Yet the shadow shows two straight legs standing side by side with no bend to the knee ... How do you explain that discrepancy ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of your points were lost on me ... I agree with you about the reflected light and the elongated shadows .

But so far you have NOT offered any photographic evidence which would show why the shape and position of the shadow does not match that of the subject suppossedly causing it .

The astronot is turned to the side with one leg raised as he walks ... Yet the shadow shows two straight legs standing side by side with no bend to the knee ... How do you explain that discrepancy ?

Well actually Duane its up to you YOU to show why the shadows are wrong, its YOUR claim. Well let me take that back, its Percy's claim and you are simlpy parroting it. Neither of you have offered any "photographic evidence" to back up the claim.

All we get is hot air and some photoshop work that is made up out of whole cloth.

When you get some actual evidence (and you can actually understand it) let me know and then we can talk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of your points were lost on me ... I agree with you about the reflected light and the elongated shadows .

But so far you have NOT offered any photographic evidence which would show why the shape and position of the shadow does not match that of the subject suppossedly causing it .

The astronot is turned to the side with one leg raised as he walks ... Yet the shadow shows two straight legs standing side by side with no bend to the knee ... How do you explain that discrepancy ?

Duane

This is why the sun angle and the angle of the slope are VERY important. Do you know if the shadow cast by the knee is actually in the photograph? Do you know how you would check that?

Answer: Vanishing Point Analysis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already posted my evidence that the original shadow is incorrect , using Percy's study which MATCHES the shadow of the astronot .

What have you proven , besides you can blow a lot of smoke about photography ?

No Duane you have not posted proof of anything and its your claim and your jpb.

First you don't have the knowlege to understand is Percy is right ot wrong, you are simply taking his words on faith, which is not a wise thing toi do given Percy's proven failure to understand how a simple shadow works.

Second, exactly what about Percy's ALTERATION of the apollo has been proven? He makes a GUESS about what HE thinks thinks the shadow should look like. He has not provided empircal evidence to support his claim. He is just blowing smoke. Sadly YOU buy it without question, which again puts your critical thinking skills in question. And WHY is it ok for Percy to alter a photo to make a point and you find that perfectly ok and when someone like Dave does it you blow a gasket?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some very important visual clues in other photographs taken as part of this pan that give an indication of just how steep the downslope is where the astronaut's shadow is being cast. Combined with the sun angle (approximately 22-23 degrees), this makes it highly likely that the part of the shadow cast by the astronaut's knee isn't actually in the frame.

Look at consecutive frames 9090, 9091 and 9092.

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-64-9090.jpg

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-64-9091.jpg

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-64-9092.jpg

shadow.jpg

Here's a quick Vanshing Point Analysis of the Aulis attempt to paste in a shadow, showing that they have got the shadow in the wrong position.

vpa_aulis.jpg

vpa_aulis_2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave ... If your latest nonsense is correct , then the shadow in the original Apollo photo is not in the correct position either , as all Percy did was to paste his corrected shadow over the original fake .

fakery10.jpg

vpa_aulis.jpg

But the POSITION of the corrected shadow in the photo really isn't the problem is it ? ... I'ts the SHAPE of the shadow which is wrong in the Apollo photo .

If you want to prove this to yourself just take a picture of someone standing out in the Sun in the position of the astronot and see what their shadow looks like ... I will guarentee you that it will NOT look anything like the phony Apollo photo and WILL look much more like Percy's photo .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some very important visual clues in other photographs taken as part of this pan that give an indication of just how steep the downslope is where the astronaut's shadow is being cast. Combined with the sun angle (approximately 22-23 degrees), this makes it highly likely that the part of the shadow cast by the astronaut's knee isn't actually in the frame.

Look at consecutive frames 9090, 9091 and 9092.

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-64-9090.jpg

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-64-9091.jpg

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-64-9092.jpg

shadow.jpg

Here's a quick Vanshing Point Analysis of the Aulis attempt to paste in a shadow, showing that they have got the shadow in the wrong position.

vpa_aulis.jpg

vpa_aulis_2.jpg

EXCELLENT DIAGRAM!

Your yellow lines show that the light casting the shadows in the photo

WAS VERY CLOSE!

The sun is 93000000miles away, and sunrays at that distance are

essentially parallel...so your yellow lines should not converge!

Thanks for admitting that the light source was close!

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some very important visual clues in other photographs taken as part of this pan that give an indication of just how steep the downslope is where the astronaut's shadow is being cast. Combined with the sun angle (approximately 22-23 degrees), this makes it highly likely that the part of the shadow cast by the astronaut's knee isn't actually in the frame.

Look at consecutive frames 9090, 9091 and 9092.

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-64-9090.jpg

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-64-9091.jpg

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-64-9092.jpg

shadow.jpg

Here's a quick Vanshing Point Analysis of the Aulis attempt to paste in a shadow, showing that they have got the shadow in the wrong position.

vpa_aulis.jpg

vpa_aulis_2.jpg

EXCELLENT DIAGRAM!

Your yellow lines show that the light casting the shadows in the photo

WAS VERY CLOSE!

The sun is 93000000miles away, and sunrays at that distance are

essentially parallel...so your yellow lines should not converge!

Thanks for admitting that the light source was close!

Jack

Sadly Jack, you are wrong again. The yellow lines ONLY show that a single light source was used to create this photograph. I suggest you study up on VPA before putting both feet in your mouth again, that is unless you really like the taste of shoes. Try again next time.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...