Dave Greer Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 (edited) How typically disingenuous of you to switch to another photograph .... Nice try , but we are not discussing the one you posted here ... We are discussing the one below ... And that still is NOT the shadow of an astronaut , no matter how much you would like it to be . Disingenuous? I'm providing supporting evidence from within the Apollo record. That photo was taken on the same EVA at about the same time as the other photos, from a similar direction. It shows the astronaut's shadow more clearly since the sunlight isn't falling directly on that side of the visor. That's why I posted the crop of that image. I don't care if you want to make fun of what I call it but to me it looks very much like a horn ... and I think everyone can see that .... Even you , though you would rather die than admit that one Apollo photograhed was faked . So because it looks to you like a horn with feathers, it must actually be a horn with feathers? The reflection of the flag looks to me like a bent piece of Redcar Rock, but I'm still highly suspicious that it might just be a flag. Why? Well, we know there is a flag in the scene that will probably be reflected in the visor. The reflection is the same colour as the flag. But it certainly doesn't appear flag-shaped. So why do I think it's a flag rather than a bent stick of rock? Well, I wouldn't expect to find a bent stick of rock on either the moon, or on a soundstage, so it would be strecthing the imagination somewhat to say it must be a bent stick of rock, simply becasue it looks like one. Same applies to the "mysterious dark patch". We see it in different places in three different photos - always on the on the right hand side of the astronaut's reflection, which is where his shadow must fall given the light source is clearly on the left. As the position of his reflection changes, so does the position of the "mysterious dark patch". In 20387, the "mysterious dark patch" is partially obscured by scracthes, making it's outline not clearly defined. Given all the evidence, I say that it's likely to be the astronaut's shadow. If we have a bright light source (sun or studio light, take your pick), and a subject (astronaut or astronot, take your pick), then chances are he's going to cast a shadow. What I would not expect to see, either on the moon, or even on your hypothetical soundstage, is a horn covered in feathers. If you still insist that it must be a feathery horn, rather than a shadow partially obscured by the dusty, scratched surface of the visor, then please explain to me why the reflection of the flag isn't actually what it looks like to me - a bent stick of rock? Or perhaps a maypole?Wouldn't that be an obvious piece of whistle-blowing too? If you think it's obviously the flag when it isn't flag-shaped, why don't you apply the same thought process to the "feathery horn"? In case our friends on the wrong side of the pond aren't aware what rock is... here's how it's made. Edited November 3, 2007 by Dave Greer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 My sincere appreciation to the participants in this thread who madepossible my new study attached; it will soon be uploaded to my Aulis website. I await speculation concerning the identity of the "mystery object" reflected in the visor. I don't think the standard "scratches" excuse will work. It looks a little like a camera, but I am interested in what others think it is. Surely nobody will deny that it is a reflection of some actual object. And please don't say it is PhotoShop trickery. Jack FOR SOME REASON THE GRAPHIC FAILED TO UPLOAD. I WILL TRY AGAIN. Come on Jack, that one's easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted November 3, 2007 Share Posted November 3, 2007 We covered that "horn" here a while back, if I have time I'll look for the thread later. What it comes down to is this: The dark patch is always right where the astronaut's shadow should be, and the light highlights on it in the picture above can be seen in other photos, in the same spot on the visor (because it's dust & scratches), and only look like part of the 'horn' in that specific photo. Jack & Duane, do you have long term memory issues? You're recycling the same arguments as if they are something new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 (edited) You are right about one thing at least Dave ... The "gentle reader" will be able to see that this reflected anomaly looks EXACTLY like a black horn covered with feathers and NOTHING like the shadow of an astronot .It's usually not like you to be so insulting ... but maybe that's the way you act when you have lost the argument . As for "shifting the argument away from the sunlight reflections" , that's exactly what Dave wanted when he posted this faked photo shown below. Just a quick question Duane, who's image have you posted here? The properties of this image list it as coming from the photobucket page of a "STRAYDOG_02". Are YOU this person who has this photobucket page or is this image from someone else? Cheers, Mr. Light Jumpoff Place Indiana. Edited November 4, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted November 5, 2007 Author Share Posted November 5, 2007 Well at least you have finally admitted that it looks like a horn covered with feathers ! And thanks to Jack , we can now see even more clearly that this "dark patch" ( oh that is rich ! ) really does look like a horn ... Or as Jack has pointed out , possibly a camera with some type of attachment ... We may never know for sure what this object was on the Apollo 17 moonset , reflected in Cernan's visor , but at least we know for sure what it's NOT ... It is definately NOT the shadow of an astronot .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 When I see this, I can't help but think of the term "grasping at straws"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 Well at least you have finally admitted that it looks like a horn covered with feathers ! And thanks to Jack , we can now see even more clearly that this "dark patch" ( oh that is rich ! ) really does look like a horn ... Or as Jack has pointed out , possibly a camera with some type of attachment ... We may never know for sure what this object was on the Apollo 17 moonset , reflected in Cernan's visor , but at least we know for sure what it's NOT ... It is definately NOT the shadow of an astronot .... I see you are still dodging the hard questions (and even the easy ones) so does that mean you are unable to anaswer them......duane? Lets add yet another...where IS the shadow of the astronaut/photographer in the visor reflection? Finally back to the original topic: Your two examples don't look like each other either. One has 10 'spokes' and the other has 14. Do you know why? How many should the apollo pictures have and why? Now back on topic, you asked for examples of starburst images from the lunar surface...are you STILL going to stand by your (or is that St. Marks) claims? In other words is it still your contention that only sunlightt can cause starburst reflections and that the shape of the highlights must mimic the shape of the light source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 (edited) As for your "bonus" photo showing the three specular light reflections ... http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-46-6790HR.jpg it is no proof of it being a Sun reflection , because as you can see in this photo below , a spotlight reflection also causes the same type of specular light reflections . Uh duane, that reflection, and lens flare is FAKE! I thought you were such a master of finding fake photography and here we have yet ANOTHER example, in this thread alone, of you posting an image that is fake and calling it real. Tsk, Tsk. Second, and this better be looked into by the mods, it appears you are using copyrighted material, for which you hold no usage rights. This is in regards to the Shutterstock images you are posting.post do not comply with the terms of service for Shuttterstock. I would really hate to see Andy and John get into big trouble because of your posts. Finally is it now your position that a starburst reflection DOES NOT HAVE TO BE CAUSED BY THE SUN? If so you just blew the entire premise of this thread (well before you sidetracked it) totally out of the water. Your statement that a spotlight can cause a starburst detroys the original claim as made by you (or was that St Mark..its so hard to remember.) Edited November 5, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 Well at least you have finally admitted that it looks like a horn covered with feathers ! To be honest I thought the mediaeval church was more convincing! And thanks to Jack , we can now see even more clearly that this "dark patch" ( oh that is rich ! ) really does look like a horn ... Or as Jack has pointed out , possibly a camera with some type of attachment ... We may never know for sure what this object was on the Apollo 17 moonset , reflected in Cernan's visor , but at least we know for sure what it's NOT ... It is definately NOT the shadow of an astronot .... For the life of me I really can't understand this argument. Let's leave aside for the time being the "feathery horn" argument, and just assume that it might possibly be a reflection of something (sorry but I just shake my head in dismay whenever I think of feathery horns...) How do you come to the conclusion that it can not possibly be a reflection of a shadow? And how do you rule out dusty scratches? We know that the astronaut MUST cast a shadow since he is in strong sunlight. As Jack rightly pointed out, shadows generally start at a person's feet if they are standing on them. Shadows also tend to fall directly away from the lightsource. That's exactly what we see in 20385-20387, so I can't understand why you think it's an hilarious claim? Why do you rule it out so easily? Is it just because you don't think it's the correct shape? Even if it's being cast on rough, uneven terrain? Here's a shadow that to me at first glance looks nothing like the subject casting it. The "arm" appears FAR too thin. There are two small horns growing out of the top of the skull. The hips are too narrow, and appear to show a standing figure, rather than someone in sprinting blocks. After studying the picture for a few more seconds it all clicks into place, and you see that it does represent a runner in starting blocks. Try applying that to what you see in the Apollo photo. Then, factor in the uneven terrain. Then, factor in the dusty scratches on the visor which are partially obscuring the shadow. If you don't think the "feathery" objects you see could possibly be scratches, again I would ask how can you be so sure to rule them out? We see them in many different photos. Take a look at the two crops below. They are taken from AS17-134-20476 and AS17-134-20477 (EVA 3). Cernan has turned ever so slightly in between photos. Crop of 20476 Crop of 20477 AS17-134-20476 AS17-134-20477 Look at the detail on the surface of the visor. It is quite clearly covered in dust and scratches, which are obviously on the surface of the visor rather than reflections of real objects. The reflection of the astronaut taking the photo is right at the centre of both crops. Animated GIF of the 2 crops:- So, we know the astronauts cast shadows. We know the visor was covered in dusty scratches. Why rule out a shadow, partially obscurede by dusty scratches in AS17-134-20387? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted November 5, 2007 Author Share Posted November 5, 2007 (edited) The picture you posted , as strange looking as it is , still looks like a person . Not a horn . Here are two consecutive photos taken from the Apollo 14 photoshoot .... How could the real Sun change in size from one photo to the next like this ? ... Did someone maybe accidently change the aperture setting on the spotlight ? ...This looks like yet another example of possible Whistle-Blowing . Jack's new study . AS14-66-9305 AS14-66-9306 Edited November 5, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 Here are two consecutive photos taken from the Apollo 14 photoshoot .... How could the real Sun change in size from one photo to the next like this ? ... Did someone maybe accidently change the aperture setting on the spotlight ? ...This looks like yet another example of possible Whistle-Blowing . This is a rehash of what was discussed in this thread a few months back. The white disc visible is not the actual size of the sun. It's caused because the film is massively over-exposed, due to the very bright sun. It's quite easy to come up with a rough estimate for how large the actual disk of the sun would be when photographed with a Hasselblad with a 60mm lens. Here's a quick study I did on this a while ago. The actual size of the sun is approximately that of the yellow circle. Jack's new study . This was discussed in the same thread. In 9306, part of the disk of the sun is obscured by the LM, reducing the amount of glare (hence also the amount of over-exposure). Incidentally, these two photos completely disprove your theory about the large lightbulbs being visible. For that theory to be correct, the light source would need to be in front of the LM, which clearly isn't the case. It would also ncessitate a change to a smaller lightbulb for this one particular photo. Jack's claim about sunlight shining through the LM is just wrong. You see this effect in many instances right here on earth, caused by a very bright light source (e.g. sun) being vastly overexposed. Best examples I can find photographically are the "diamond ring" effect visible during some eclipses. Do a google image search for "diamond ring eclipse". Here's one for you consider. Clearly the sun is not shining through the moon - just as it isn't shining through the LM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted November 6, 2007 Author Share Posted November 6, 2007 So let me get this straight then . We have Greer's "Sun" . Lamson's "Sun" And last but certainly not least ... The Apollo "Sun" . I just can't quite make up my mind which is the most ridiculous looking ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 So let me get this straight then . We have Greer's "Sun" . Lamson's "Sun" And last but certainly not least ... The Apollo "Sun" . I just can't quite make up my mind which is the most ridiculous looking ! Duane... perhaps I should have pointed this out more clearly. The yellow dot is something I drew in myself... it represents the approximate size of the sun, computed from the apparent size of the earth in Apollo photos (using an identical focal length), and known data regarding the angular size of the sun/moon as compared to the earth. The sun is so small in these photos that there is very little detail to be seen, in fact it's only just possible to make out what appears to be the edge of the disc. The rest of what you or Jack have previously incorrectly claimed to be the sun is simply a photographic effect due to the extreme brightness of the sun, and the settings on the camera (which were generally set for the equivalent of a Sunny day on earth IIRC). Most of what you see reflected in the visor is glare. I'm unsure of what the angular size of the sun would be, but we know it would be less than in my diagramme since convex reflectors like the sun-visor make reflections seem further away (i.e. smaller) than a flat mirror. The image you posted claiming to be the Apollo sun is mainly lens flare caused by a very strong light source, as explained many times. The actual size of the sun in that series of six images would be similar (relative to the size of the glare) as the size if the sun's disk in my image. In oter words, a lot smaller than what you are claiming is a huge light bulb. This is all fully supported by empirical data. Even the photos from the Apollo 14 series near the LM (where the brightness decreases) back this up: the LM partially obscures the sun's disk and reduces it apparent overall brightness - hence, the amount of flare. The reflections and photographs of the sun may look ridiculous looking to you, but I've done my best to explain it as I see things from my point of view and can't really help you further. Maybe someone else can explain it more concisely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 There are numerous examples of the sun flare in a picture being larger than the actual size of the sun in the image. For instance, in this picture, do you believe that the sun is actually overlapping the side of the building? http://gallery.zed1.com/albums/Vivicam-tes...mage9.sized.jpg I don't think this image has been altered at all, but cannot vouch for it. If anyone likes, I'll try to find the original image along with it's ID number and ensure it is not a composite of some type: More examples: http://images.fotosearch.com/bigcomps/DGV/...0204631-001.jpg http://www.emilydewan.com/blogpix/20070707_jfcf_1506.jpg http://www.nakaiphotography.com/blog/wp-co...joe-cate-27.jpg http://tumyeto.com/images/uploaded/Austin-Sun-Flare_opt.jpg etc, etc What it means is that once more, Jack's study is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted November 6, 2007 Author Share Posted November 6, 2007 (edited) So let me get this straight then . We have Greer's "Sun" . Lamson's "Sun" And last but certainly not least ... The Apollo "Sun" . I just can't quite make up my mind which is the most ridiculous looking ! Duane... perhaps I should have pointed this out more clearly. The yellow dot is something I drew in myself... it represents the approximate size of the sun, computed from the apparent size of the earth in Apollo photos (using an identical focal length), and known data regarding the angular size of the sun/moon as compared to the earth. The sun is so small in these photos that there is very little detail to be seen, in fact it's only just possible to make out what appears to be the edge of the disc. The rest of what you or Jack have previously incorrectly claimed to be the sun is simply a photographic effect due to the extreme brightness of the sun, and the settings on the camera (which were generally set for the equivalent of a Sunny day on earth IIRC). Most of what you see reflected in the visor is glare. I'm unsure of what the angular size of the sun would be, but we know it would be less than in my diagramme since convex reflectors like the sun-visor make reflections seem further away (i.e. smaller) than a flat mirror. The image you posted claiming to be the Apollo sun is mainly lens flare caused by a very strong light source, as explained many times. The actual size of the sun in that series of six images would be similar (relative to the size of the glare) as the size if the sun's disk in my image. In oter words, a lot smaller than what you are claiming is a huge light bulb. This is all fully supported by empirical data. Even the photos from the Apollo 14 series near the LM (where the brightness decreases) back this up: the LM partially obscures the sun's disk and reduces it apparent overall brightness - hence, the amount of flare. The reflections and photographs of the sun may look ridiculous looking to you, but I've done my best to explain it as I see things from my point of view and can't really help you further. Maybe someone else can explain it more concisely? No , you explained it quite well Dave ... I already knew that you invented the yellow dot in the middile of the Apollo "Sun" ... You have fit your 'analysis' to match what is known about the size of the Sun , compared to the size of the Earth , as would be seen from the Moon . But I can't believe that you really believe that your yellow dot would really represent the Sun in this photographic image , and that the rest of the massive Sun image is nothing but "flare" .... How absurd ! Here is a photo of an overexposed Sun , according to the photographer . And here is another photo of an overexposed Sun , according the photographer . And here is a photo of an overexposed FLASHLIGHT LIGHT . And finally here the Apollo 14 "Sun" , which looks NOTHING like the photos of the overexposed Sun , but looks very much like the photo of the overexposed FLASHLIGHT LIGHT ON A PIECE OF PAPER !!! Edited to correct an error with the description of the third picture ... Oops ! ... It's pretty funny that the Apollo "Sun" actually looks more like a flashlight light than it does the real Sun !!! Edited November 7, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now