Dave Greer Posted May 7, 2007 Share Posted May 7, 2007 (edited) Pericynthion (Unexplained Mysteries) has provided some more evidence of why the Apollo 17 photograph doesn't contain anomalous shadow angles. This is his PM to me, posted with his permission. After seeing the discussion on the Education Forum and on YouTube regarding AS17-136-20744, I decided to try to replicate the shot with my 1/6-scale Apollo astronaut figure.The camera I'm using for my model astronaut photos is a Canon SD700 IS. The zoom lens is set at its widest angle (5.8 mm focal length). For this camera and image sensor, the focal length is stated by Canon to be equivalent to that of a 35mm lens on a 35mm film camera. This Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_view) shows that for a 35mm lens on a 35mm film camera, the horizontal field of view is 54.4 degrees. To confirm this for my camera, I photographed a tape measure placed perpendicular to the lens axis at a distance of 5 feet (60 inches) from the camera. I measured a visible horizontal edge-to-edge distance of 60 inches at the wide angle setting. This corresponds to an actual field of view of 53.1 degrees. The Apollo Image Atlas (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/) confirms that both the Apollo 15 shadow picture (AS15-85-11437) and the Apollo 17 shadow picture (AS17-136-20744) were shot with the 70mm lunar surface Hasselblads and 60mm lens. Clavius (http://www.clavius.org/photlens.html) shows that the horizontal field of view of this camera and lens combination is 53.5 deg, essentially identical to that of the camera I've been using. To replicate AS17-136-20477, I posed the astronaut figure and then placed my camera on a small tripod at chest level directly in front of the figure. I set up a single spotlight at 16 deg above the horizon to match the sun elevation shown on the photo data at the Apollo Image Atlas (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS17-136-20744). To simulate the rocks, I wadded up small bits of paper and scattered them on the floor. For the large rock in the upper right corner of the original photo, I spent a bit of time shaping the paper to approximate the major features of the rock. The rest are pretty much random lumps. Here's the result: I think my photo shows pretty clearly that the original Apollo photo is perfectly consistent with the results to be expected from the lunar surface Hasselblad using a 60mm lens. No fisheye lens is required to match the shadow features. And since I know the claim will be made again that my little experiments are somehow proof that the orginal Apollo photos are miniatures shot indoors using closeup lighting, let me preemptively counter that argument with this photo: http://img508.imageshack.us/my.php?image=l...distancerj4.jpg The Apollo photos cannot be perfectly replicated indoors with artificial lighting. If the spotlight is at all close to the subject being photographed, the shadows diverge noticeably as shown in the top photo. This is just basic optics. This divergence is exactly the opposite of what the conspiracy theorists are claiming about the Apollo 17 photo, and it makes it harder to match the real-world photos becase the shadows DON'T appear to converge like they should. To approximate real sunlight, I have to move the spotlight very far away from the subject. As you can see in the lower photo, even when I put the light as far away as my room will allow, the shadows still aren't completely parallel. This just shows that I would get an even BETTER match to the original photo if I were to move this setup outdoors and photograph it in real sunlight. This is just one of the issues with artificial lighting. There are several other problems, many of which are visible in my photos if you look closely enough. My shadows aren't as crisp, the light intensity is not even, etc., etc. Edited May 8, 2007 by Dave Greer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 (edited) Jarrah's rebuttal . "Because of the recent flame wars, as well as Greer's retraction of his original story that his camera was zoomed out, I thought about getting access to the very camera he used and see what results I could come up with. Unfortunately, the F10 was no longer available, but luckily the newer model has the same 8-24mm lens as its older brother. And so, our old friend the ice cream bucket returns for its second photo shoot. As well as some various other test photos with my and other peoples shadows. And here the results: http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0007.jpg http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0008.jpg http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0009.jpg http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0010.jpg http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0011.jpg http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0012.jpg http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0013.jpg http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0014.jpg http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0015.jpg http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0016.jpg http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0017.jpg http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0018.jpg http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0019.jpg http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0020.jpg http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0022.jpg http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0023.jpg http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0024.jpg http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0025.jpg Please note, that all these pictures were taken with the lens zoomed out, except for numbers 0015 and 0016, which were slightly zoomed in. And in the driveway photos, the registration plate on my car has been censored. These were taken using the exact same lens used on the Fuji F10, I'm sure you're familiar with Greer's beach photo, so let's hear what Greer has to say about my photography. " Jarrah Edited May 9, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 Jarrah's rebuttal ."Because of the recent flame wars, as well as Greer's retraction of his original story that his camera was zoomed out, I thought about getting access to the very camera he used and see what results I could come up with. Unfortunately, the F10 was no longer available, but luckily the newer model has the same 8-24mm lens as its older brother. And so, our old friend the ice cream bucket returns for its second photo shoot. As well as some various other test photos with my and other peoples shadows. And here the results: http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0007.jpg http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0008.jpg http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0009.jpg http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0010.jpg http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0011.jpg http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0012.jpg http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0013.jpg http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0014.jpg http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0015.jpg http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0016.jpg http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0017.jpg http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0018.jpg http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0019.jpg http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0020.jpg http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0022.jpg http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0023.jpg http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0024.jpg http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0025.jpg Please note, that all these pictures were taken with the lens zoomed out, except for numbers 0015 and 0016, which were slightly zoomed in. And in the driveway photos, the registration plate on my car has been censored. These were taken using the exact same lens used on the Fuji F10, I'm sure you're familiar with Greer's beach photo, so let's hear what Greer has to say about my photography. " Jarrah Thanks for that Duane. I'm too busy now but will reply properly later. Very quickly though, he has made no mention of how film format affects focal length - this was central to his claims on his Youtube video regarding angle of view. Secondly, in at least two of his photos he has successfully debunked Jack White's claim about a photographer's shadow falling to the bottom centre, so he hasn't cpmpletely wasted his time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 Jarrah's rebuttal ."Because of the recent flame wars, as well as Greer's retraction of his original story that his camera was zoomed out, I thought about getting access to the very camera he used and see what results I could come up with. Unfortunately, the F10 was no longer available, but luckily the newer model has the same 8-24mm lens as its older brother. And so, our old friend the ice cream bucket returns for its second photo shoot. As well as some various other test photos with my and other peoples shadows. And here the results: http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0007.jpg http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0008.jpg http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0009.jpg http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0010.jpg http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0011.jpg http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0012.jpg http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0013.jpg http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0014.jpg http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0015.jpg http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0016.jpg http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0017.jpg http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0018.jpg http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0019.jpg http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0020.jpg http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0022.jpg http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0023.jpg http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0024.jpg http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...er/DSCF0025.jpg Please note, that all these pictures were taken with the lens zoomed out, except for numbers 0015 and 0016, which were slightly zoomed in. And in the driveway photos, the registration plate on my car has been censored. These were taken using the exact same lens used on the Fuji F10, I'm sure you're familiar with Greer's beach photo, so let's hear what Greer has to say about my photography. " Jarrah Jarrah White beats himself at his own game. Photo 0007 proves he is wrong..again. Check out the shadow of the car. Game, Set and Match. Of course he is still failing to deal with his major error about focal length and FOV but who is counting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 Good point - 0007 does show that. Well picked up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 Yes, the problem, as I've said before, is the shape of the bucket. The shadow is falling in the same direction as the rock, but the shape of the bucket (point at the top) makes it appear different than the rock (flat on top). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 Jarrah White beats himself at his own game. Photo 0007 proves he is wrong..again. Check out the shadow of the car. Game, Set and Match.Of course he is still failing to deal with his major error about focal length and FOV but who is counting. Jarrah would claim that shadow is not representative of the Apollo shadow since it isn't level with the shadow of the photographer. However, Jarrah did actually debunk himself in his video, just as the bucket is falling over. Here is a still from the video:- Trying to measure the front angle of the shadow rock is somewhat meaningless anyway since the shadow edge isn't even a straight line, so how Jarrah can claim this angle to be ninety degrees I don't really know. The only horizontal line is the top edge of the shadow, but surely he can't be measuring that one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 (edited) I really don't understand what Jarrah was trying to prove with these photos. A dozen or so photos of a bucket, and a few of his shadow. As explained before, the shape of the object being photographed has a direct effect on the shape of it's shadow (along with terrain, perspective, lens etc). Using a tilted bucket in this manner can only be used to show that shadows can appear to be cast by more then one light source, even though we know there is only one direct light source (the sun). I've already presented one of Jarrah's own photos (actually a video still) which shows the effect I think he was trying to show was impossible. Simply presenting more photos where this effect isn't present does not harm my case at all - it just shows that Jarrah lacked the ability to recreate the effect. What is a little more disconcerting about this is Jarrah's refusal to address the issue which was at the very heart of the two videos in which he tried to make out that my photo was deceptive, i.e. that of angle of view. He made a lot about my focal length (actually 18mm) being three times wider than the Apollo lens used (60mm), and happily exclaimed that his camera was very close to the Apollo lens focal length (57mm). As shown in my earlier posts, he has completely dis-regarded film format or sensor size, which directly affects the angle of view (as does focal length). Jarrah even made the mistake of claiming that his video camera had a similar angle of view to the 60mm lens on the Hasselblad, because his lens was 57mm. Wrong again I'm afraid. His lens is a zoom lens with a variable focal length from 1.9mm-57mm. The focal length is only 57mm when his camera is set to 30x zoom! For him to be right, his camera would have to exhibit a similar angle of view to the slightly wide-angle 60mm lens used on the Hasselblad, while zoomed in at 30x!!! I've tried several times to ask Jarrah to correct his mistake re angle of view without any joy, so I'll ask again and hope that he reads the request here or that it gets passed to him by Duane. 1. Do you agree that angle of view is dependent not only on focal length, but also film format or sensor size (for standard or non-fish-eye lenses)? 2. Do you agree that the angle of view of my initial beach photo (18mm focal length) is approximately half the angle of view of the Apollo 60mm lens, not three times as you stated? 3. Do you agree that the angle of view used in my second beach photo (9mm focal length) approximates the angle of view of the Apollo 60mm lens? If Jarrah can't agree on at least the first point, then there is no point debating the issue further since this point is not an opinion, it is a fact that anyone can verify for themselves on many photographic and optical physics websites. Edited May 10, 2007 by Dave Greer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 I've been asked to clarify my initial beach photo since the green arrows could be construed as being misleading, since they imply that the shadows under the rock are at ninety degrees when clearly they aren't. This photo was just to demonstrate that a single light source can be responsible for shadows at seemingly impossible angles, but for the record I will clarify my position. Here is my initial beach photo, taken with a Fuji F10 - the focal length was actually f=18mm (which is the 35mm equivalent of f=81mm) http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r81/hea...ck/shadow01.jpg I took another photo at the same time, this one with f=8mm (which is the 35mm equivalent of f=36mm), I'll use this one since the angle of view is closer to the Apollo photo in question. http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r81/hea...ck/DSCF1488.jpg A straight line that intersects an object and its shadow must also intersect the point on the photo where the shadow of the (rectilinear) lens would be. This should be true for all shadows in the photo, regardless of the evenness of the terrain. The main difficulty comes in figuring out which part of an object corresponds to which part of a shadow. I've attempted to do this on my beach photo below. Since I know fairly accurately where the shadow of the lens is, I used that as an anchor point - the lines I've drawn fit very well with rocks and their equivalent shadows. Hi res version Here's my attempt at trying this process in reverse, i.e. drawing a straight line through the edges of rocks, and the corresponding shadow. There is obviously margin for error here. I've tried not to be swayed by where the shadow of the Hasselblad would be so I can't be accused of trying to manipulate the data to get the desired outcome. I think the lines intersect quite well given the margin for error. My own conclusion is that there is nothing anomalous about the "shadow rock", since a straight line tangentially joining the rock and it's shadow intersects where the shadow of the lens would be (astronauts chest), exactly as expected. Hi res version I hope this demonstrates the point I'm trying to make more clearly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 I've been asked to clarify my initial beach photo since the green arrows could be construed as being misleading, since they imply that the shadows under the rock are at ninety degrees when clearly they aren't. This photo was just to demonstrate that a single light source can be responsible for shadows at seemingly impossible angles, but for the record I will clarify my position.Here is my initial beach photo, taken with a Fuji F10 - the focal length was actually f=18mm (which is the 35mm equivalent of f=81mm) http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r81/hea...ck/shadow01.jpg I took another photo at the same time, this one with f=8mm (which is the 35mm equivalent of f=36mm), I'll use this one since the angle of view is closer to the Apollo photo in question. http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r81/hea...ck/DSCF1488.jpg A straight line that intersects an object and its shadow must also intersect the point on the photo where the shadow of the (rectilinear) lens would be. This should be true for all shadows in the photo, regardless of the evenness of the terrain. The main difficulty comes in figuring out which part of an object corresponds to which part of a shadow. I've attempted to do this on my beach photo below. Since I know fairly accurately where the shadow of the lens is, I used that as an anchor point - the lines I've drawn fit very well with rocks and their equivalent shadows. Hi res version Here's my attempt at trying this process in reverse, i.e. drawing a straight line through the edges of rocks, and the corresponding shadow. There is obviously margin for error here. I've tried not to be swayed by where the shadow of the Hasselblad would be so I can't be accused of trying to manipulate the data to get the desired outcome. I think the lines intersect quite well given the margin for error. My own conclusion is that there is nothing anomalous about the "shadow rock", since a straight line tangentially joining the rock and it's shadow intersects where the shadow of the lens would be (astronauts chest), exactly as expected. Hi res version I hope this demonstrates the point I'm trying to make more clearly. Thats a VPA or vanishing point analysis...and its not used to pinpoint the location of the lens but rather the suns direction. In both the Apollo imageaa nd your beach images the sun was at near zero phase, meaning it was at almost the same angle to the scene as the lens angle...in other words directly behind the photographer. Thats why the vanishing points all intersect....because there is only ONE LIGHT SOURCE. If what the ct's says is true, that there are many light sources the VPA would highlight that fact by showing the lights that cause the "90 degree" shadows to be far to the left and right of the scene. Of course that is smiply not the case because once again THERE IS ONLY ONE LIGHT SOURCE! Your photos point out another interesting fact. All of this talk about matching the Apollo lens is a red herring. You offer us two images with a wide angle lens and a telephoto lens and we can see by inspecting both images that the focal length had no bearing on the perspective in the photos...repete..NO BEARING! Jarrah White, Duane and everyone else who are making a big deal about this are ignorant of how a lens works...an knowing they have lost the argument are attempting...and failing...to draw attention away from that simple fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 (edited) Thats a VPA or vanishing point analysis...and its not used to pinpoint the location of the lens but rather the suns direction. In both the Apollo imageaa nd your beach images the sun was at near zero phase, meaning it was at almost the same angle to the scene as the lens angle...in other words directly behind the photographer. Thats why the vanishing points all intersect....because there is only ONE LIGHT SOURCE. If what the ct's says is true, that there are many light sources the VPA would highlight that fact by showing the lights that cause the "90 degree" shadows to be far to the left and right of the scene. Of course that is smiply not the case because once again THERE IS ONLY ONE LIGHT SOURCE!Your photos point out another interesting fact. All of this talk about matching the Apollo lens is a red herring. You offer us two images with a wide angle lens and a telephoto lens and we can see by inspecting both images that the focal length had no bearing on the perspective in the photos...repete..NO BEARING! Jarrah White, Duane and everyone else who are making a big deal about this are ignorant of how a lens works...an knowing they have lost the argument are attempting...and failing...to draw attention away from that simple fact. Cheers for that Craig. I was under the impression that if the light source was visible, then the vanishing point would of course be the light source, but that if the light source were behing the photographer then the vanishing point would effectively be the shadow cast by the lens of the camera (since a ray of light from the source would obviously intersect the camera lens and it's own shadow). Is this the case, or is it just a happy accident in my photo? I'll try it on some others to confirm. Regardless, the Apollo photo appears to have the one vanishing point, in the astronauts chest, right where the Hassy is. Edited May 12, 2007 by Dave Greer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted May 13, 2007 Share Posted May 13, 2007 Bravo boys ! ... That little performance would have to be some of your best tap dancing yet ! Jarrah is very busy at the moment but if he has made a mistake with any of his analysis , he will admit it because he is an honest person , unlike most of you . So while we are all waiting for Jarrah's reply , and since you are all so fond of playing games so much ( especially the character assassination one ) I thought I would bring this new game to your attention ... I do believe it was made for people just like you ! ... Oh , and it comes with sound effects too ... Every 30 seconds you will hear .... " Bhaaaaaa " ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 13, 2007 Share Posted May 13, 2007 Bravo boys ! ... That little performance would have to be some of your best tap dancing yet ! Jarrah is very busy at the moment but if he has made a mistake with any of his analysis , he will admit it because he is an honest person , unlike most of you . So while we are all waiting for Jarrah's reply , and since you are all so fond of playing games so much ( especially the character assassination one ) I thought I would bring this new game to your attention ... I do believe it was made for people just like you ! ... Oh , and it comes with sound effects too ... Every 30 seconds you will hear .... " Bhaaaaaa " ! Translated from Duanespeak: Holy crap, I'm not sure what just happened and I'm ignorant of the process of photography so I guess I'll try and post some meaningless crap and hope I look like I have them beat. And just for the heck of it I will break the forum rules and call "most of you" liars. Well Duane, Jarrah has had ample opportunity on his Youtube forum to admit his error ( which is substantial and has been proven wrong with uninpeachable evidence) and yet all he has done is to attempt to shift the argument AWAY from his error. The only honesty in question at this point is his. As for the VPA Dave has done, it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the image in question had only a single light source. I know it is beyond your level of understanding, but that will not change the fact that the process works as advertised. I challenge you to prove the process does not work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted May 13, 2007 Share Posted May 13, 2007 And once AGAIN spoken like a true narcissist ! ... You people just have no sense of humor at all , do you ? ... Especially when you are the joke . Oh, and speaking of narcissists , I bet you voted for ole' "Tricky Dick" Nixon too didn't you ? ... You remember him don't you ? .. He's the criminal who gave the go ahead for nasa to fake the moon landings ... Then he made that famous self serving phone call from the White House to the moonset ! ... And he got to speak to our heros , Buzz Lightyear and George Jetson ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 13, 2007 Share Posted May 13, 2007 (edited) And once AGAIN spoken like a true narcissist ! ... You people just have no sense of humor at all , do you ? ... Especially when you are the joke .Oh, and speaking of narcissists , I bet you voted for ole' "Tricky Dick" Nixon too didn't you ? ... You remember him don't you ? .. He's the criminal who gave the go ahead for nasa to fake the moon landings ... Then he made that famous self serving phone call from the White House to the moonset ! ... And he got to speak to our heros , Buzz Lightyear and George Jetson ! Still at a loss to deal with FACTS I see Duane. Clearly facts confuse you. I can understand your trouble...you live in a fantasy world... So please educate us all. Tell us WHY the VPA onthe Apollo 17 image, which proves beyond all doubt that there was only one light source, is not correct and why you and others who claim more than one light source are correct. Edited May 13, 2007 by Craig Lamson 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