Gavin Stone

Merry Christmas Everyone, I will return once the Beer has worn off, so see you in about 4-5 days haha!

Indeed - you are correct. This is what I meant If I was to increase the distance from the mountain by a factor of 10, it would have the same Angular difference as the Lunar module; I see where you're coming from, I was just using the 100 metres as a constant to show with those kind of distances, the angular difference between the LM and mountains is huge Hehe indeed, I only just remembered I knew that after I read your post. I'm not very knowledgeable in photography (one of my holes in Apollo knowledge is the hasselblad and its operation(something I will remedy with time)) which is why I'm glad we have Photography experts like you here EDITED: Beginners mistake!

Jack, what are you on about? As long as you keep the units the same for size and distance, it's fine when calculating angular size.

Duane, I think what this stems from is a lack of understanding. You will not hear anyone arguing with you about your point. It is a physical impossibility for a mountain to get bigger the further away you get from it, when using either your eye or a camera with the same lens for both pictures; it's as simple as that. What we are talking about here when we're taking about size, is actually the angular size of an object. This can be worked out quite easily. But first a quick lesson in angular sizes. As I hope this diagram illustrates, imagine C to D is the height of the South Massif, which infact is 2300 metres. The distance from eye to mountain is 8000 metres (These are actually the real sizes, the Lunar module was roughly 8km from the base of the South Massif, and the South Massif is actually 2300 metres high). There is a simple way to calculate angular size: Angular size in degrees = (size * 57.29) / distance * If you plug the numbers into the equation, we get: Angular size in degrees = (2300*57.29) / 8000 Angular size in degrees = (131767) / 8000 Angular size in degrees = 16.47 (to two decimal places) So we know that the angular size of the South Massif is 16.47. Now then, what happens if we stand one hundred metres away from the LM? Angular size in degrees = (2300*57.29) / 8100 Angular size in degrees = (131767) / 8100 Angular size in degrees = 16.27 (to two decimal places) Notice that the result is only a fraction smaller? This is because the size is so big. Now lets calculate this for the Lunar Module. The Lunar module is 6.37 metres high and I will calculate what its angular size is from ten metres away. Angular size in degrees = (6.37*57.29) / 10 Angular size in degrees = (364.9373) / 10 Angular size in degrees = 36.49 degrees (to the nearest two decimal places) Notice that the LM is a massive angular size, it takes up over twice the angular size of the South Massif. Now for the final calculation. What happens when you are stood 100 metres away from the Lunar Module. Angular size in degrees = (6.37*57.29) / 100 Angular size in degrees = (364.9373) / 100 Angular size in degrees = 3.65 degrees (to the nearest two decimal places) Notice how the Lunar module has had a massive reduction in it's angular size? This is because it's so small. As distance increases, it is a mathematical impossibility for the angular size to get bigger, this is why the same mountain always has to be smaller when viewed from a further distance away. Now let me bring these pictures into it. You are claiming that there is evidence of a mountain getting bigger with a photo taken from further away. This is an impossibility. We all agree with this. The reason that the evidence you are providing is flawed, is because Jack has taken the pictures out of proportions. He has scaled them up and then cropped them, and THEN compared the angular size. This is why the fidicals are burnt in to the lens, so it's possible to work out sizes etc etc. The second you start scaling an image, you can no longer rely on it for a size comparison; and this is what Jack has done. I hope you understand now. If you still don't believe give me the two Apollo reference numbers of situations where this is happening (please don't use Jacks reference on his study as they are wrong). *tan (angle) = opposite/adjacent = Line CD/ Line AD = size/distance Since this works for small angles, let us take the tangent of 1 degree which is .017455 which means that when an object's size is .017455 times its distance, it has an angular size of 1 degree. Reworded: When an object's distance is 57.29 times its size, it has an angular size of 1 degree.

Duane, the Apollo study you are claiming as the evidence of mountains getting bigger, can you provide a reference for the bottom and top pictures, as the bottom one is not actually that reference. Exactly!!! That mountain is HUGE. That's what we'd expect to see.

Mountains are more or less the same size in those two pictures. The one closer to the LM in slightly bigger. The only changes made to this image that I have posted is a slight rotation. THESE IMAGES ARE AT THE SAME SCALE. Also, as you can see, the rocks to the right of the LM are quite clearly bigger in the photo closer to the LM. By the way Duane, this actually proves that the mountain is actually a mountain. I'd love to hear your explanation for them being the same size if it was a backdrop! Maybe they got hold of that shrinking ray from Honey I shrunk the kids. Jack the fact that you are a supposed expert in photography and you still can't understand how scaling the pictures would effect the results truly does boggle my mind. Even I can understand this, and I have no formal training in photography whatsoever. Proof:

Duane, I don't believe they are stars. They look like some sort of 'specular highlight' that have been caused by the scanning process. I got hold of the ultra high resolution version of this and as you can see (look at the far right hand side of the frame) there appears to be a lot of damage to the frame. It could also be dust, it's hard to tell. I'd say though that whatever they are, as they expand across the entire frame and not just in the sky that they are a function, or disfunction, of the scanning process. http://www.landingapollo.com/ISD_highres_A...15-85-11405.JPG

Ah the unwinnable situation. Present NASA Photo's with 'Anomalies' on as the gospel truth, and then refuse to deal with the NASA evidence that is shown back to you. Great logic Jack!

Indeed, I retract my statement. I'm always honest, and I will be in this case. For some reason I was convinced you admitted to the spotlight argument being sound, not the footlights. My apologies. That said, it says something that you have only ever accepted one argument ever from the Apollo camp.

Indeed, I've spotted this before as well Evan. Infact, I've seen Duane post pictures on one site, ADMIT that he is wrong and that the explanation made sense and then post it again a couple of months later.

Jack, As a person who is apparently a photographer I'm not sure how you can not understand that lens flare is sometimes added for dramatic effect? This is not new information, as Craig said, it's a standard filter in photoshop; it adds a feeling of realism to artificial scenes, and also that of beauty to some landscape photographs.

Ahh Jack White. Your reputation procedes you. I'd like to thank you for not bothering to read my post properly. If you would have done, you'd have realised they are not actually my models, and I was sourcing the pictures from elsewhere; but I digress. What are my credentials? If you are so inclined, you can read my biography here. No Jack, things are not shadows because I say they are, things are shadows because basic Physics says so. An astronaut in a place with one light source (whether you think it is spotlight or sun) is going to create a shadow, on this we can agree. If you look at the location of the sun and the direction of the shadow, I don't find it convenient that where you would expect his shadow to be, there is a dark patch looking remarkably like a shadow. That said, the burden of proof is not on me - it is on you. You must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the dark patch is not a shadow, for that I wish you good luck (you will need it).

Not only do I object to being referred to as "Blind" I also reject the use of the word Astronot, which is, lets face it, an immature digg and word to use.

Forgive me Evan, but I'm afraid you're wrong good sir! In the Apollo 17 Lunar Surface Journal, Gene Cernan is quoted as saying: "...when you were on the surface in the LM's shadow, there were too many bright things in your field-of-view for the stars to be visible. But I remember that I wanted to see whether I could see stars, and there were times out on the surface when I found that, if you allowed yourself to just focus and maybe even just shielded your eyes to some degree, even outside the LM shadow you could see stars in the sky. I could see stars through my helmet visor; not easily, but it can be done." Dark Adaptation. If there is sufficiently bright light in an Astronauts FOV, he will not be able to see the dimmer stars. Albedo is ratio of electromagnetic energy reflected by an object. It has no relevance to the AMOUNT of Radiation reflected. 7% of the Sun's visible light is quite a lot you know

He then put his camera very close to the "Jack Schmitt" figure to represent the position of Jack's Hasselblad and snapped a shot of the "Gene Cernan" figure. Here's a closeup of the original shot, AS17-134-20387: And here's his miniature approximation of the same shot, zoomed in on the visor: A gif I made with additional proof that it's the astronauts shadow in the helmet reflection. Think that's enough to leave you with for now.

1) If a spotlight was pointing directly at the astronaut (and if Duane was correct then it must be) - the back would never be visible based on its apparent position. EVER. It would always be behind the light. 2) If Duane was correct and that is a spotlight the light would not be visible at all as it would be shining directly to the left. If you could, will you post an overhead diagram like mine of where you think the spotlight is placed. Here is a the largest resolution of that Apollo 17 picture we have at present. Doesn't look so much like a spotlight anymore does it Now to address the claims of the person being "much to small" to be an Astronaut. For this I draw from http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...ight&st=240, more specificaly Pericynthion - a fantastic guy, may I add. "I decided to see if I could roughly replicate in miniature the conditions of shot 20387 to see whether or not the dark area in question could possibly be Jack Schmitt's shadow. To represent Jack, I dug up an ancient GI Joe figure which is also 1/6-scale. Both figures are 12 inches tall. I set up a single halogen spotlight 10 feet away from the Buzz Aldrin figure and about 3 feet off the floor. This puts the light source about 17 deg above the horizon, which is within the range of angles given by NASA for the sun's position during EVA 1, when the photo was taken. See here: Sun Angles Once I had the light positioned, I moved the two figures around to try to approximately match (1) the sun position in Gene's visor, and (2) the size and position of Jack Schmitt's reflection in Gene's visor. Since I don't have data on the relative positions of the two astronauts, I do not claim that I am exactly recreating the Apollo 17 shot. This is merely an experiment to see whether it's possible for the dark area in the original photo to be Jack's reflection. Here are a couple shots of the test setup:"

Good morning Duane, long time no see I'm going to go with the "spotlight" reflected on the visor thing first. Do you really want me to pull out the numerous Apollo pictures showing that "spotlight" for what it really is? Oh OK, you've convinced me! This is a high resolution scan WITHOUT image processing. Well that back of the "spotlight" is interesting. Maybe it's on of those magical spotlights from Happy Happy Joy Joy land that randomly change their back ends, either that or it's the sun highlighting a smudge.

I'm a 22 year old IT Systems Analyst from Blackpool, England. I'm current working towards a BSc (Hons) Physics, tailored towards Astrophysics in my spare time, and then hopefully I'll go on to do a MPhys. I've been interested in science and astronomy since I was a small, which led to my current fascination with space, more specifically the Apollo program.