One Giant Spotlight For All Mankind

[Evan Burton]

Anyone who would lie about going to the moon would have no qualms about lying with his hand on a bible.

On this, we can agree.

[Dave Greer]

I think of all the Apollo photographs that show a definate dividing line between the foreground stage and the painted mountain backdrops , it would be the series of Apollo 15 "postcard pictures" that are some of the most obvious of fakes ... They are a series of perfectly blocked studio shots showing all of the necessary props ( astronaut , LM , buggy and flag ) that probably took a professional photographer WITH A VIEWFINDER , several hours to set up and photograph .

I won't waste bandwidth posting tons of photos that show this particular dividing line , because the defenders of Apollo will just play the same game they always do .... They will say that you can't compare the Moon to the Earth ( or in Dave's world maybe you can ) ... That depth perception and distance can't be properly photographed or even judged or seen in a vacuum , and that the obvious dividing line is just the difference in the landscape (like in Dave's typical non like-for-like dry creek bed photo ) , which does show distance and depth perception , unlike the typical faked Apollo photographs , where small scale models were most likely used to fake distance perception .

What makes the Apollo 15 "postcard" series so obvious as having a faked backdrop , would not only be the straight line between the darker foreground and the lighter , blurry looking background , but also the fact that the bootprints and buggy tires tracks only appear in the darker area foreground of the moonset and abruptly cut off at the edge of the very close painted backdrop mountains , which are allegedly several miles away and very huge .

The foreground is probably darker due to astronaut activity around the LM - as you would expect due to all the kicked up dust.

If you're correct about your claims, then it should be evident by looking at other photos of the same feature (Hadley Delta, with Silver Spur on the left, St George crater to the right.) In fact, there were several photos taken of this from the top hatch of the LM during the SEVA (stand-up EVA), which they performed before the first EVA. Here's one of the photos they took.

Link to hi-res version

The first thing to note is that the shadows on Hadley Delta are more prominent than in your EVA3 photo - just as you'd expect since the sun is lower in the lunar sky.

Secondly, if you superimpose both images, you'll see that the delta is almost exactly the same size in each image. The two photographs are taken from a distance apart of approximately 30-50 feet, with the SEVA image also being taken fro a higher vantage point. If this was a fake painted mountain backdrop, it should look noticeably closer in the SEVA photo than the EVA3 photo, since the backdrop wouldn't be a couple of miles away.

(cropped animated GIF of AS15-87-11479 and AS15-88-11865).

The foreground in both images is obviously different, since the SEVA image is taken from the top of the LM, and the EVA3 image is behing the LM. Check out the crops below.

Edited December 12, 2007 by Dave Greer

[Jack White]

I think of all the Apollo photographs that show a definate dividing line between the foreground stage and the painted mountain backdrops , it would be the series of Apollo 15 "postcard pictures" that are some of the most obvious of fakes ... They are a series of perfectly blocked studio shots showing all of the necessary props ( astronaut , LM , buggy and flag ) that probably took a professional photographer WITH A VIEWFINDER , several hours to set up and photograph .

I won't waste bandwidth posting tons of photos that show this particular dividing line , because the defenders of Apollo will just play the same game they always do .... They will say that you can't compare the Moon to the Earth ( or in Dave's world maybe you can ) ... That depth perception and distance can't be properly photographed or even judged or seen in a vacuum , and that the obvious dividing line is just the difference in the landscape (like in Dave's typical non like-for-like dry creek bed photo ) , which does show distance and depth perception , unlike the typical faked Apollo photographs , where small scale models were most likely used to fake distance perception .

What makes the Apollo 15 "postcard" series so obvious as having a faked backdrop , would not only be the straight line between the darker foreground and the lighter , blurry looking background , but also the fact that the bootprints and buggy tires tracks only appear in the darker area foreground of the moonset and abruptly cut off at the edge of the very close painted backdrop mountains , which are allegedly several miles away and very huge .

The foreground is probably darker due to astronaut activity around the LM - as you would expect due to all the kicked up dust.

If you're correct about your claims, then it should be evident by looking at other photos of the same feature (Hadley Delta, with Silver Spur on the left, St George crater to the right.) In fact, there were several photos taken of this from the top hatch of the LM during the SEVA (stand-up EVA), which they performed before the first EVA. Here's one of the photos they took.

Link to hi-res version

The first thing to note is that the shadows on Hadley Delta are more prominent than in your EVA3 photo - just as you'd expect since the sun is lower in the lunar sky.

Secondly, if you superimpose both images, you'll see that the delta is almost exactly the same size in each image. The two photographs are taken from a distance apart of approximately 30-50 feet, with the SEVA image also being taken fro a higher vantage point. If this was a fake painted mountain backdrop, it should look a noticeably in the SEVA photo than the EVA3 photo, since the backdrop wouldn't be a couple of miles away.

(cropped animated GIF of AS15-87-11479 and AS15-88-11865).

The foreground in both images is obviously different, since the SEVA image is taken from the top of the LM, and the EVA3 image is behing the LM. Check out the crops below.

What a joke on the unwary. The images do not match, and you totally ignore

perspective; the craters off in the distance close to the "mountain" do not get

smaller with distance. They are about the same size as closer craters. I guess

you will reply that the craters near the mountain are GIGANTIC.

Jack

[Duane Daman]

Sorry Dave but I will have to agree with Jack here ... You have really shot yourself in the foot with your latest GIF ... By superimposing the two images on top of each other the way you have , it's even more obvious that they are NOT the same image at all .... Look at the configuration of the top right part of the "mountain" ... It's not even close .... Even the three different colored foreground part of the set is not the same in any respect , and it has nothing to do with "dirt being kicked up " either ...

Like I said before ... the dead givaway of it being a set with a fake backdrop is the sudden absence of bootprints and buggy tracks on the lighter colored area ... As for the lighting changes , there is no way the very long lunar day would account for that drastic of a change between the "landing "photo shoot and the "EVA" photo shoot .

Did nasa have two different moonsets for their Apollo 15 photo shoot I wonder? ... Cuz they had about ten different ones for Apollo 17.

[Dave Greer]

Sorry Dave but I will have to agree with Jack here

You agree with JACK? OMG!

... You have really shot yourself in the foot with your latest GIF ... By superimposing the two images on top of each other the way you have , it's even more obvious that they are NOT the same image at all .... Look at the configuration of the top right part of the "mountain" ... It's not even close ....

The image I posted was taken during the SEVA. This was PRIOR to the first EVA. The sun angle was quite low, especially compared to images taken at the end of EVA 3, such as your image. Do you not understand the principle that a lower sun angle will cast longer shadows? That this effect will be quite pronounced on a downslope with a similar angle as the sun's inclination, as seen in the SEVA photo?

Please explain what differences you see in the top right of the mountain that aren't more than adequately explained by boring, everyday realities such as an increasing sun angle, slight differences in focus, and of course, a small difference in location and direction of camera? You don't really have an argument at the moment, you're just claiming that something is the way you see it without any kind of corrobarating evidence. When evidence is supplied to support the validity of the Apollo photos by demonstrating internal consistency, you just laugh it off without addressing the evidence itself. Why not show where I'm wrong? Why not prove that it can't be the changing sun angle that causes the shadows to decrease? You can't really expect anyone to fall for your usual "I see this, therefore I am right" level of proof?

Even the three different colored foreground part of the set is not the same in any respect , and it has nothing to do with "dirt being kicked up " either ...

Perhaps you don't understand that these two photos were taken from different locations? One was taken from the top hatch of the LM. One was taken some distance away from the LM. The one from the top of the LM is higher up - hence you are able to see more of the inside of the crater in the mid-distance (it's actually Last Crater, about 100-200m from the LM). This photo does NOT show the darker coloured dust in the EVA3 photo. It doesn't take an IQ of 160 to figure out that this is due to 2 reasons: firstly, the photo was taken during the SEVA - i.e. the astronauts hadn't even left the LM; secondly, the darker dust would probably not even be in the field of view. You can verify this by looking at the rest of the SEVA photos.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-87-11730HR.jpg

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-87-11731HR.jpg

.

..... just keep increasing the frame number

.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-87-11758HR.jpg

You can't have seen my study which provides evidence that there are similar features in both photographs. I'll paste it again, but make sure you actually look at it, and at least try and comprehend what I'm saying. Then, if you think I'm wrong, you can demonstrate why I'm wrong.

So, check out the small craters in the green circle. Are they the same between photos? How about the yellow rectangle? How about the purple polygon? If you look carefully enough, and you're honest with yourself and me, you'll see that they match up very well.

As for your insinuation that astronaut activity doesn't kick up dust that can darken the area, that is just plain wrong - please don't waste my time my making prove such a basic issue that would be apparent to anyone who has studied Apollo photos as muchas you and I have. I've even demonstrated this to you before, and you've agreed with me. By the third EVA there was PLENTY of astronaut and rover activity around the LM - which means PLENTY of bootprints, PLENTY of kicked up dust.

Like I said before ... the dead givaway of it being a set with a fake backdrop is the sudden absence of bootprints and buggy tracks on the lighter colored area ... As for the lighting changes , there is no way the very long lunar day would account for that drastic of a change between the "landing "photo shoot and the "EVA" photo shoot .

How many hours passed between photos? How much did the sun angle increase? Why can this angle not account for the change in shadows?

You need to answer these questions otherwise you're engaging in nothing more than conjecture, which isn't a very convincing form of evidence. That naughty old burden of proof that you keep trying to slip off your shoulders, I'm going to keep on putting it right back on you!

While you're pondering how you can possibly produce some real evidence rather than speculation and handwaving, here's some more evidence of the internal consistency in Apollo photos I mentioned earlier.

[Jack White]

Greer tries to explain the differences by

....one photo is from top of LM

....one photo is from ground level beside the LM

This is plainly absurd. AT THE GREAT DISTANCE

THE MOUNTAIN IS FROM THE LM, A FEW FEET

ELEVATION AND A FEW FEET HORIZONTALLY

ARE INSIGNIFICANT.

Let's say in Japan you photograph Mt.Fuji

from your truck window, and then get out and

climb on top of the truck and photograph it again.

Given the great distance from the mountain, the

differences in the photo of Fuji would not be

discernable.

You can fool some of the people...only if they

have no common sense.

Jack

Edited December 12, 2007 by Jack White

[Matthew Lewis]

Jack obviously didn't read the whole post because one photo was taken from the top of the LM and the other was "some distance away" from the LM not beside it. But more importantly, the greater difference between the two photos comes from the change in sun angle because they were taken at quite different times. Surely Jack, with his photo experience would agree that a change in sun angle would make a distant mountain appear slightly different right?

[Jack White]

Jack obviously didn't read the whole post because one photo was taken from the top of the LM and the other was "some distance away" from the LM not beside it. But more importantly, the greater difference between the two photos comes from the change in sun angle because they were taken at quite different times. Surely Jack, with his photo experience would agree that a change in sun angle would make a distant mountain appear slightly different right?

No. The horizontal distance between the photos cannot be more

than about 30 feet. At the distance from the "mountain" ON THE

HORIZON, 30 feet is insignificant. Photograph any mountain on

the horizon, move 30 feet and take another...and then show me

any significant difference in the mountain. The foreground will

change...but not the horizon.

I suspect mathematics could answer the questions, but math is

not a specialty of mine. The height of the LM is known; the

height of the "mountain" is known; the distance from the LM

to the "mountain" is known, the lens is known, the distance

from camera to lens can be calculated. Figuring the relative

heights should be a simple math problem.

Jack

Edited December 12, 2007 by Jack White

[Dave Greer]

Greer tries to explain the differences by

....one photo is from top of LM

....one photo is from ground level beside the LM

This is plainly absurd. AT THE GREAT DISTANCE

THE MOUNTAIN IS FROM THE LM, A FEW FEET

ELEVATION AND A FEW FEET HORIZONTALLY

ARE INSIGNIFICANT.

Let's say in Japan you photograph Mt.Fuji

from your truck window, and then get out and

climb on top of the truck and photograph it again.

Given the great distance from the mountain, the

differences in the photo of Fuji would not be

discernable.

You can fool some of the people...only if they

have no common sense.

Jack

Jack

Let me make it clear again since my other detailed posts obviously didn't.

The visible differences on the mountain are due mainly to the difference in sun angle.

The visible differences in the foreground are due to the difference in where the photos were taken from. In particular, the small craters I labelled are approximately 100-200 metres away (350-700 feet). Quite clearly, you can see more of Last Crater in the SEVA image than the EVA3 image (due to higher/closer vantage point).

Now, try misrepresenting that position.

[Duane Daman]

Dave ... After studying your many circles and oblongs etc. I have come to the conclusion that you are correct ... The photos are the same but only look different because of the location of where they were taken and because someone remembered to move the spotlight to produce the different "Sun" angle effect on the moonset .

The painted backdrop didn't begin where I assumed it did ( on the lighter area ), but rather at the base of the "mountain" instead .

[Dave Greer]

Dave ... After studying your many circles and oblongs etc. I have come to the conclusion that you are correct ... The photos are the same but only look different because of the location of where they were taken and because someone remembered to move the spotlight to produce the different "Sun" angle effect on the moonset .

Thanks for acknowledging that Duane.

Question I would ask is, how would moving a spotlight change the depth perception of a crater on a painted backdrop?

The painted backdrop didn't begin where I assumed it did ( on the lighter area ), but rather at the base of the "mountain" instead .

OK. Do you have any evidence for this? I've got evidence that it's not a painted backdrop (see GIF above).

Here are some studies I did a while ago on Apolo 15 that were used in a different discussion, but are quite appropriate to this discussion.

Here's a GIF of crops of two photos of Mount Hadley (to the North of the LM), taken during different EVAs. Sun rises, shadows shorten.

Here's another, again from Apollo 15. How is this change in shadow angles possible by shining a spotlight onto a flat, painted background and moving the spotlight?

(When looking at the GIF above, see how the light changes in the purple zone marked below - I think the lightening in the green zone is due to a lens flare).

I'll try and post some more evidence that the mountains are not painted backdrops later. There's plenty - parallax effects on the mountains as the astronauts move from one geology station to another being a major giveaway that they are not painted backdrops.

Edited December 13, 2007 by Dave Greer

[Duane Daman]

There's plenty - parallax effects on the mountains as the astronauts move from one geology station to another being a major giveaway that they are not painted backdrops.

Perhaps "painted backdrops" was a poor choice of words to describe the lunar sets ... How about three dimentional , movable "mountain" props , including "craters" , that were sometimes accidentally used again for the different "Moon" scenes ? .... There are photos where the same backgrounds were used repeatedly at different locations and also photos of one scene where the backgrounds change , that seem to have nothing to do with the parallax view .

I will post some evidence of that when I have more time .

Edited December 14, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Jack White]

Duane...painted backdrops is not a good description. See Dark Moon by Percy and Bennet,

which shows movable scale models, not painted flats. Three dimensional sets allow lighting

changes. But of course, moonset mountains are NOT actual size, and that is one reason they

look so phony when the distances change and the mountains do not. They had different

set models for distant background, intermediate background and foreground. If you look

carefully most wide shots show distinct separations of the three.

Jack

[Evan Burton]

There are photos where the same backgrounds were used repeatedly at different locations and also photos of one scene where the backgrounds change , that seem to have nothing to do with the parallax view.

I will post some evidence of that when I have more time .

I'll be interested in seeing that, but what I am expecting is the same old mistakes ala Jack.

[Evan Burton]