Apollo Moon Landings

A_HRD

Well Known and Active Forum User
VOC Member
Quote: Moon landings? That made me smile. Hmm, that's an extremely long, and an extremely curious off-topic!! Unquote.

Not at all, Stevee's link took me straight to this 'myth-busters' page (copied below) which explains a very similar photographic misrepresentation due to dark/light/angles/shadows/reflections/etc. A very apt and interesting parallel comparison to the discussion on the first page - explaining how misconceptions can happen as a result.

Just explaining - for the benefit of those who didn't see/understand the relevance of the link.

Peter B


Apollo 14 photo: shadows appear to point different directions

Aldrin in shadow, yet clearly visible
Myth statement Status Notes One of the NASA photos is fake because the shadows of the rocks and lunar lander are not parallel.BustedThe MythBusters built a small scale replica of the lunar landing site with a flat surface and a single distant spotlight to represent the Sun. They took a photo and all the shadows in the photo were parallel, as the myth proposed. They then adjusted the topography of the model surface to include a slight hill around the location of the near rocks so the shadows fell on a slope instead of a flat surface. The resulting photograph had the same shadow directions as the original NASA photograph from Apollo 14.One of the NASA photos is fake because Buzz Aldrin can be clearly seen while in the shadow of the lunar lander.BustedTo test this, the MythBusters built a much larger scale (1:6) replica of the landing site, including a dust surface with a color and albedo similar to lunar soil. The MythBusters then took a photograph which was nearly identical to the original NASA photo from Apollo 11. The MythBusters explained that the astronaut was visible because of light being reflected off the Moon's surface.
 

timetraveller

Well Known and Active Forum User
VOC Member
I don't want to create too much subject drift but the Moon landing conspiracy theorists do not seem to be realistic. Imagine that the radio signals which were carrying images etc. had not been coming from the Moon then the Russians would have had a field day telling the world that the origin of the signal was not the Moon but either somewhere on planet Earth or a satellite. They would have loved to have busted the whole thing open. They did not ipso facto the signals came from the Moon.
 

Nigel Doe

Forum User
VOC Member
I don't want to create too much subject drift but the Moon landing conspiracy theorists do not seem to be realistic. Imagine that the radio signals which were carrying images etc. had not been coming from the Moon then the Russians would have had a field day telling the world that the origin of the signal was not the Moon but either somewhere on planet Earth or a satellite. They would have loved to have busted the whole thing open. They did not ipso facto the signals came from the Moon.

I’m rather intrigued by the remarkable dynamic range required of the camera medium (film/sensor) to show the astronaut in such fine detail given the general scene brightness. And I sometimes ponder into the small hours whilst star-gazing, sitting on the veranda, about the fluttering flag or the the earth-like images ( sand thrown up by the wheels) of the moon buggy with the film set to run at 50% speed. How about the notion that the moon was actually visited but that the camera-work might not be quite what it seems for perfectly valid reasons (space-race) of the period?

This might be ‘off’ but it’s a good topic!
 

vibrac

Well Known and Active Forum User
VOC Member
I saw the moon landing and first exit after a days racing at snetterton it did not happen till the following early morning in UK I have never been so tired in all my life
 

timetraveller

Well Known and Active Forum User
VOC Member
The photograph of Buzz Aldrin exiting the module and apparently being illuminated is due to the following. The albedo (reflectivity) of the Moon's surface is about 4%, that is about the same as tarmac. Therefore, although he is in shadow the exposure had to be sufficiently long or large aperture that enough light was captured to illuminate him in shadow. Note also the ladder is well illuminated. Compare the apparent brightness of the space suite with the background rocks and you will see that it is still darker than the Moon's surface.
As politicians were involved I can well believe that some images could have been created but later missions have photographed the tracks of the Lunar Rover, and other items left on the surface. Some of these items have been brought back to Earth for later analysis and are found to be covered in micro craters. This is due to a continuous in fall of dust at about 30 km/second as the Moon has no significant atmosphere to slow the dust down and it hits everything with that kind of speed.
 
Top