ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: timbo on August 03, 2015, 06:31:02 AM
-
Hello new to this site
whilst looking at photos of the supposed moon landing I was shocked at just how bad they were. The buggy in some of these photos are so prepped it is laughable there are clean crisp foot prints suggesting a powder like surface but no tread pattern left by the buggy. the picture I attached is a clear demonstration of this. its as though the buggy was placed in these shots the area prepped and only after it looked good did they allow the actor to walk towards the buggy. This reoccurs time and time again. I must be seeing the wrong photos you can even see the line between stage and backdrop I apologise if this is a reoccurring topic I was just after your thoughts thanks.
-
I see tracks behind the left rear tire. Remember that the rover drove to a location and then the astronauts got out walked around the rover aiming the high gain antenna, getting tools and devices to be used at that particular location. All this movement kicked up dust as they both walked around.
-
Welcome to the site
You need to view the picture along with the others in the series, rather than rely on a single image. It's really quite simple.....the rover drives up to a position, the astronauts gets out and move around the rover. Their actions re-disturb the regolith and either cover up (through dust sprays) the tracks or just erase them.
Heres an example from A15:
(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-88-11901.jpg)
See, no "buggy" tracks?
Yet take the subsequent images and merge them into a single pane and you get this:
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/455/19974923282_8c728d6c7c_b.jpg)
AS15-88-11901 to 11907 together. You can see the tracks leading to the site of the fallen astronaut/cosmonaut memorial and the disturbed regolith that has covered the tracks.
Further, if you go to the LRO site and look at the LRO images of the same landing site:
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/369/19796366169_c4c48817d5_c.jpg)
So, a modicum of research on your part will find you the answers.
Regarding the "line between the stage and backdrop"? Nonsense. Please show your experience in analysing photographs, especially those taken in a vacuum on a small diameter body, that would allow you to draw such a ridiculous conclusion.
-
Hello new to this site
whilst looking at photos of the supposed moon landing I was shocked at just how bad they were. The buggy in some of these photos are so prepped it is laughable there are clean crisp foot prints suggesting a powder like surface but no tread pattern left by the buggy. the picture I attached is a clear demonstration of this. its as though the buggy was placed in these shots the area prepped and only after it looked good did they allow the actor to walk towards the buggy. This reoccurs time and time again. I must be seeing the wrong photos you can even see the line between stage and backdrop I apologise if this is a reoccurring topic I was just after your thoughts thanks.
Timbo
I was involved in a discussion on this issue on the Education Forum back in 2007, here's a link to my post on that thread. Look through the successive images and see how easily the tracks are obscured by astronauts swapping positions as they take it in turns to take photos of each other at the flag, as well as the changes between different EVAs.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=81e255debd88c4c0ebc8e7099c8f45c1&showtopic=10998#entry118623
Any questions, fire away.
-
Welcome Timbo!
Your answer can be found by watching extended clips of the EVAs. Not the showy bits like the hammer & feather or the golf swing, but rather the long stretches when they're doing field geology or deploying experiments. What you will see is an extraordinary phenomenon that cannot be replicated on Earth.
The lunar dust (called regolith) is extremely fine-grained, like like talc, plaster or cement (and holds a footprint just as well, as you noticed). however, when you kick such fine powder on Earth, it always billows in our air. Larger particles (like sand) do not billow as much, and will be seen to go a short distance when kicked - but it has to be a substantial kick.
On the Moon, in 1/6th gravity, just the small foot motions of the astronauts as they scuff around doing their work is often enough to send the dust flying a meter or more. Also, without any air the dust does not billow at all. Time and again, in the EVA footage you can see loping astronauts sending great fans of fine regolith in every direction.
At every stop the Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV) made, the first thing the astronauts would do is get out, walk around the front, dust-off the TV camera, manually point the high-gain antenna at Earth so we could get the TV signal, then hop around to the back of the LRV to unload their sampling tools (in 1/6th g you can't really walk in the conventional sense - the kinematics don't allow it - but you can hop, skip, lope, bounce and sashay). When they do this, they cannot help but kick dust all over the rover tracks. When they move away and start photographically documenting the area, you can see that the area around the LRV (including the tracks) is completely covered with kicked dust and footprints.
However, if you look at photos taken further away from the LRV, you can often find the distinctive chevron tire-tracks from where the LRV drove up. (I see that, while I have been writing this, others have posted examples).
Hope this helps.
-
Timbo
I was involved in a discussion on this issue on the Education Forum back in 2007, here's a link to my post on that thread. Look through the successive images and see how easily the tracks are obscured by astronauts swapping positions as they take it in turns to take photos of each other at the flag, as well as the changes between different EVAs.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=81e255debd88c4c0ebc8e7099c8f45c1&showtopic=10998#entry118623
Any questions, fire away.
Nice discussion and picture spread. :)
-
Welcome to the site, timbo.
Please keep the following in mind:
The moon's gravity is only 17% that of the earth, meaning the rover's tires apply much less force on the surface.
The thickness of the lunar dust layer varies quite a bit from place to place.
The astronauts frequently worked around the rover: pointing the high-gain antenna at the earth; cleaning the TV camera and battery box covers; and loading and unloading equipment and samples. In so doing they kicked up quite a bit of dust and disturbed many rover tracks.
Because it was so light in lunar gravity, the astronauts actually did pick up the rover on occasion, usually to turn it around on a single spot. They found that easier than driving it.
The visibility of lunar surface features varies quite a bit depending on the exact shape of the surface and the direction of the sun. The lunar surface is much more uneven than it may seem from single photographs; look at some of the many stereo pairs to get a better feel for this.
The rover did in fact leave many clear tracks, as shown in many pictures both from the surface and later from orbit (e.g., from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter).
-
Thanks for the answers and being tolerant
-
Glad to help! There's an incredible amount of information available, and a lot of answers you can get with some digging and even experimentation. Right now I can't wait to get home and take a picture of "the line between stage and backdrop" which is actually a surprisingly common phenomenon in photography. ;)
-
Timbo
I was involved in a discussion on this issue on the Education Forum back in 2007, here's a link to my post on that thread. Look through the successive images and see how easily the tracks are obscured by astronauts swapping positions as they take it in turns to take photos of each other at the flag, as well as the changes between different EVAs.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=81e255debd88c4c0ebc8e7099c8f45c1&showtopic=10998#entry118623
Any questions, fire away.
Nice discussion and picture spread. :)
Can't believe that was 8 years ago! In a weird kind of way I almost miss the heady days of the Apollo hoax discussions (they've really quietened in recent years). Learnt an awful lot. When you really study the photographic and video record in depth, there's more than enough evidence there alone to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the moon landings happened. There's just too much correlation between images/video and other sources. The faint image of Venus exactly where it should have been in some of the Apollo 12 (might have been 14) photos is another great example.
-
Timbo
I was involved in a discussion on this issue on the Education Forum back in 2007, here's a link to my post on that thread. Look through the successive images and see how easily the tracks are obscured by astronauts swapping positions as they take it in turns to take photos of each other at the flag, as well as the changes between different EVAs.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=81e255debd88c4c0ebc8e7099c8f45c1&showtopic=10998#entry118623
Any questions, fire away.
Nice discussion and picture spread. :)
Can't believe that was 8 years ago! In a weird kind of way I almost miss the heady days of the Apollo hoax discussions (they've really quietened in recent years). Learnt an awful lot. When you really study the photographic and video record in depth, there's more than enough evidence there alone to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the moon landings happened. There's just too much correlation between images/video and other sources. The faint image of Venus exactly where it should have been in some of the Apollo 12 (might have been 14) photos is another great example.
Being a space nut from the late 50's-60's, I dropped out of the technical following, just the telecasts, due to work. Now that my time is more free to relive and learn what I missed is fun. I have learned SOOOOOOOOOOOO MUCH on this site about the missions.
-
Hi Timbo,
there is also TV footage, where you can see exactly how much lunar dust is sprayed about by the astronauts as they work around the rover. It has been a long time since I viewed it, so I cannot remember exactly where it was, as it was part of another similar discussion several years back. Maybe one of the other members here can help out.
Regards
Dwight
-
Here is one example that dwight is talking about
-
Timbo
I was involved in a discussion on this issue on the Education Forum back in 2007, here's a link to my post on that thread. Look through the successive images and see how easily the tracks are obscured by astronauts swapping positions as they take it in turns to take photos of each other at the flag, as well as the changes between different EVAs.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=81e255debd88c4c0ebc8e7099c8f45c1&showtopic=10998#entry118623
Any questions, fire away.
Nice discussion and picture spread. :)
Can't believe that was 8 years ago! In a weird kind of way I almost miss the heady days of the Apollo hoax discussions (they've really quietened in recent years). Learnt an awful lot. When you really study the photographic and video record in depth, there's more than enough evidence there alone to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the moon landings happened. There's just too much correlation between images/video and other sources. The faint image of Venus exactly where it should have been in some of the Apollo 12 (might have been 14) photos is another great example.
I recall that. It was for Apollo 14, and it was a question posed by someone who did not believe the missions occured as stated. One of our members here (although I can't recall who it was, sorry) researched and uncovered a fairly big piece of evidence.
-
I recall that. It was for Apollo 14, and it was a question posed by someone who did not believe the missions occured as stated. One of our members here (although I can't recall who it was, sorry) researched and uncovered a fairly big piece of evidence.
Now how would NASA ever think of someone would actually question the position of objects.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-64-9189.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-64-9194.jpg
show a series, Venus very dim ball just to the right of the high gain disk.
https://www.google.com/search?q=apollo+image+of+venus&biw=1366&bih=599&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMInI_Y75SNxwIVg5iACh0FAg0r#tbm=isch&q=apollo+14+image+of+venus&imgrc=KjxsO5Mggd1V-M%3A
Google's image is annotated.
-
I recall that. It was for Apollo 14, and it was a question posed by someone who did not believe the missions occured as stated. One of our members here (although I can't recall who it was, sorry) researched and uncovered a fairly big piece of evidence.
Now how would NASA ever think of someone would actually question the position of objects.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-64-9189.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-64-9194.jpg
show a series, Venus very dim ball just to the right of the high gain disk.
https://www.google.com/search?q=apollo+image+of+venus&biw=1366&bih=599&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMInI_Y75SNxwIVg5iACh0FAg0r#tbm=isch&q=apollo+14+image+of+venus&imgrc=KjxsO5Mggd1V-M%3A
Google's image is annotated.
I believe I have also found Venus on AS14-66-9327 to 32, see towards the end of this page:
http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/stars/as14venus.html
These images were taken from inside the LM after the final EVA (if I'm right).
You can also see Venus in some Apollo 16 images.
-
I recall that. It was for Apollo 14, and it was a question posed by someone who did not believe the missions occured as stated. One of our members here (although I can't recall who it was, sorry) researched and uncovered a fairly big piece of evidence.
Now how would NASA ever think of someone would actually question the position of objects.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-64-9189.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-64-9194.jpg
show a series, Venus very dim ball just to the right of the high gain disk.
https://www.google.com/search?q=apollo+image+of+venus&biw=1366&bih=599&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMInI_Y75SNxwIVg5iACh0FAg0r#tbm=isch&q=apollo+14+image+of+venus&imgrc=KjxsO5Mggd1V-M%3A
Google's image is annotated.
I believe I have also found Venus on AS14-66-9327 to 32, see towards the end of this page:
http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/stars/as14venus.html
These images were taken from inside the LM after the final EVA (if I'm right).
You can also see Venus in some Apollo 16 images.
Did you ever get any stupid comment that the Earth was to small in these images?
-
Did you ever get any stupid comment that the Earth was to small in these images?
Not to anything I've done specifically, but I've seen it argued.
My response is usually to ask whoever makes the comment to go out with a camera and take a photo of the moon, then see if it looks as big in the photo as they think it should.
-
Here (http://apollohoax.proboards.com/thread/995/missing-planetoid) is the original thread where Venus was found. Data Cable's revelation is near the bottom of the first page. Showtime's frantic tapdancewhen he realizes he's been owned is hilarious. ;D
-
Did you ever get any stupid comment that the Earth was to small in these images?
Not to anything I've done specifically, but I've seen it argued.
My response is usually to ask whoever makes the comment to go out with a camera and take a photo of the moon, then see if it looks as big in the photo as they think it should.
Cool, BerieSlack posted a video for hunchback concerning the same concept.
Too bad that more HB's don't visit web pages like yours to get another viewpoint. Except they would brand you as a shill. The discussion may not be as viral here, but YouTube has a plethora of uneducated/mislead.
Is it permissible to post links to your web pages?
-
The "line between stage and backdrop" argument is an old one. Yes, that is a common technique in theatrical design to convey a three-dimensional illusion of depth. But consider that it's a convincing technique because it mimics what occurs in real life. I live in mountainous country. Compared to the mountains in my home valley, the relatively minor fluctuations in the valley floor seem very insignificant. But in fact according to surveys they amount to a hundred meters or more. Even from my office, perched 100 meters above the valley floor, I can see across the valley only a few kilometers; the aptly named town of Midvale sits atop a gentle rise which nevertheless blocks everything behind it until you see the mountains rising 2,000 meters above the valley floor.
Your other allusion to theatrical practice guesses that the rover was carefully prepped. I was privileged to work on another program with the grip crew from From the Earth to the Moon, and their notion of "carefully prepping" the rover was to roll it into place on its own wheels, while wearing Apollo shoe coverings supplied by Global Effects, the company that made the space suit costumes. On the program I worked on, we had a desert location and a single bright light source, much as there would be on the Moon. What I noticed was that the tracks of the various pieces of equipment were variously visible depending on what angle I looked at them from.
Basically it comes down to the expectations that rover tracks should be seen in all the photos depicting the rover. You have to be prepared to consider good and valid reasons why that expectation may not hold. And if you're going to propose your own affirmative reasons why instead the tracks are not easily seen -- i.e., that it was all carefully set up on a film or photography set -- then you will be asked questions about how you tested that hypothesis.
-
The "line between stage and backdrop" argument is an old one. Yes, that is a common technique in theatrical design to convey a three-dimensional illusion of depth. But consider that it's a convincing technique because it mimics what occurs in real life. I live in mountainous country. Compared to the mountains in my home valley, the relatively minor fluctuations in the valley floor seem very insignificant. But in fact according to surveys they amount to a hundred meters or more. Even from my office, perched 100 meters above the valley floor, I can see across the valley only a few kilometers; the aptly named town of Midvale sits atop a gentle rise which nevertheless blocks everything behind it until you see the mountains rising 2,000 meters above the valley floor.
...
The fall off's look to me to be nothing more than a drop off of a small ridge of sorts, much like your valley. With no atmosphere to partially obscure the ridge, it looks more clear and crisp. So much for the "flat surface" claimed by many. I assume you still have your duck(?)?. A link to that set of images might be good for timbo.
-
It's a penguin, and it's still on my shelf. Someone else has a more handy link to those images, but they were intended more to illustrate parallax than relative flatness. Were the weather not quite so foul today I would take some illustrative pictures.
-
I've never understood this "no tracks" BS. Basically the HB argument is:- A crane was used to move a fake rover into place and posed, when the said rover had wheels and clearly could be seen moving. But even if it had no engine, instead of pushing it into place, they used a crane?¿ Why?¿ Oh, the crew wanted to be whistleblowers.. :D :D
Paranoia is alive and well in many corners of the globe. :)
-
It's a penguin, and it's still on my shelf. Someone else has a more handy link to those images, but they were intended more to illustrate parallax than relative flatness. Were the weather not quite so foul today I would take some illustrative pictures.
As soon as you said parallax, I remembered is was a response to a question I had asked.
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/thread/589?page=1
Its hard to keep up with all I've been shown in the last few months.
-
I've never understood this "no tracks" BS. Basically the HB argument is:- A crane was used to move a fake rover into place and posed, when the said rover had wheels and clearly could be seen moving. But even if it had no engine, instead of pushing it into place, they used a crane?¿ Why?¿ Oh, the crew wanted to be whistleblowers.. :D :D
Paranoia is alive and well in many corners of the globe. :)
From a "Perconian" point of view.
-
I've never understood this "no tracks" BS. Basically the HB argument is:- A crane was used to move a fake rover into place and posed, when the said rover had wheels and clearly could be seen moving. But even if it had no engine, instead of pushing it into place, they used a crane?¿ Why?¿ Oh, the crew wanted to be whistleblowers.. :D :D
Paranoia is alive and well in many corners of the globe. :)
In keeping with most conspiracy "theory" beliefs, anything more than a modicum of thinking blows it straight out of the water. Most of these ideas are not internally consistent and bear no relation to the real world. As Jay said earlier...if you are a stage hand and you needed to get a wheeled vehicle moved on a stage the what would you do? Push it into place, or mess about with a crane, getting a rigger, hooking it up to straps, lifting it and then de-rigging it?
One of the most ridiculous of their ideas was the "Superlight" bollocks. I mean, where is that used in real life??? These people really live by the "I can think it, therefore that MUST be how it was done".
(http://www.aulis.com/imagesfurther%20/super-light3.jpg)
-
(http://www.aulis.com/imagesfurther%20/super-light3.jpg)
Jeez, is that really how big the HB's claim the 'super light' was? Wouldn't that just fry anything put in front of it?
-
Yeah, that looks more like something pulled out of the 'Desperate Nazi weapon plans' archive. ::)
-
I thought I'd seen that before. Percy at his worst, but debunked
-
One of the most ridiculous of their ideas was the "Superlight" bollocks. I mean, where is that used in real life??? These people really live by the "I can think it, therefore that MUST be how it was done".
(http://www.aulis.com/imagesfurther%20/super-light3.jpg)
Well they clearly didn't "think it" very well. That "superlight" is, by my estimate, about 18m in diameter (using the little human figures at about 6ft tall as a rough guide).
If that was anywhere near close to the subject it was lighting, it would not cast sharp shadows. The shadows of everything it illuminates would be indistinctive because light would be coming from across a wide angular distance. (think shadows cast by fluorescent tubes).
In order to cast shadows as sharp as the sun, they would have to place the superlight at the distance at which its apparent angular diameter is that of the Sun, approx half a degree. My "back of the envelope" calculation shows this distance to be about two kilometres!!!
For the superlight to illuminate the set from two kilometres away it would have to be a tremendously powerful lamp. I don't have the necessary knowledge to calculate this (perhaps someone here has) but my ballpark guess would be that we are talking hundreds of millions of candlepower.
-
(http://www.aulis.com/imagesfurther%20/super-light3.jpg)
Jeez, is that really how big the HB's claim the 'super light' was? Wouldn't that just fry anything put in front of it?
In front of it? How about it'd fry itself? ... not to mention that something that big would be a rather large engineering project - which, like many of the other HB claims for technology or operations, has left no trace whatsoever.
-
And mounted on a vehicle which could move it around and elevate it according to the changing position of the sun it should emulate. Several hundred meters in fact.
-
Percy probably had Groves think this bit of photographic evidence.
-
And mounted on a vehicle which could move it around and elevate it according to the changing position of the sun it should emulate. Several hundred meters in fact.
Oooh! I've gone back to something I started looking at a while ago (see 'Shadow boxing' on my site)) looking at the movement and size of shadows as missions progress.
The fact that the proximity of a supposed studio light would infuence the size of the shadow hadn't occurred to me!
I need to look at how this would affect the width of a lunar module shadow in relation to to the LM itself now :)
-
Welcome to the site
You need to view the picture along with the others in the series, rather than rely on a single image. It's really quite simple.....the rover drives up to a position, the astronauts gets out and move around the rover. Their actions re-disturb the regolith and either cover up (through dust sprays) the tracks or just erase them.
Heres an example from A15:
That Apollo 15 photo, and its place in the excellent panorama that Dave Scott took at the rover's final parking spot, is perfect to illustrate the point about rover tracks getting erased around the rover. The panorama also shows how tracks (and other features) are much harder to see down-sun and up-sun compared to cross-sun.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15pan1674859.jpg
I also like this Apollo 16 photo taken by Charlie Duke:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-107-17436HR.jpg
Again you can see how astronaut activity around the rover has obscured the tracks - and you can see how Charlie himself obscured the foreground tracks just by walking across them once to take up his position for the pan sequence.
HBs are also fond of a photo from Apollo 16 which appears to show no tracks around one of the rover wheels but with no obvious signs of astronaut activity there. A quick look at the mission transcript reveals that, after parking the rover at one of the geology stations, John and Charlie realised that rover was right on top of the spot where they wanted to do some sampling - so instead of getting in and driving it away they just picked it up and moved it out of the way by hand.
-
Hello new to this site
whilst looking at photos of the supposed moon landing I was shocked at just how bad they were. The buggy in some of these photos are so prepped it is laughable there are clean crisp foot prints suggesting a powder like surface but no tread pattern left by the buggy. the picture I attached is a clear demonstration of this. its as though the buggy was placed in these shots the area prepped and only after it looked good did they allow the actor to walk towards the buggy. This reoccurs time and time again. I must be seeing the wrong photos you can even see the line between stage and backdrop I apologise if this is a reoccurring topic I was just after your thoughts thanks.
Welcome to ApolloHoax, timbo. Mind if I ask a few questions and give you some useful hints?
You say "the supposed moon landing." Which one are you talking about? You've selected a poor-quality photo, AS17-146-22367, from Apollo 17, so is that the landing you consider is "supposed"?
How many lunar surface photos have you looked at? Two or three? Tens? Hundreds? A thousand? Were they all bad? Could you not find a single decent photo? There are indeed many photos that have poor exposure, poor focus and/or camera shake, but there are plenty of good ones too.
Do you know about the Apollo Lunar Surface Journals (ALSJ)?
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/frame.html
They give a great deal of detail about what went on while the crews were on the lunar surface, and they have massive image libraries with all of the lunar surface photos (and some orbital ones) with captions that explain many of them, and with their times noted to the nearest second. Your photo was taken at approximately 166:53:35 into the mission, and the caption at the ALSJ says:
166:53:35 This is Gene's "locator" to the Rover. This excellent picture shows the TV camera pointed off to the left and the high-gain antenna pointed back towards Earth, which is over the South Massif. Note that the low-gain antenna, which is partially hidden by the high-gain is also pointed at Earth. The SEP antenna is behind Jack's seat and the rake for the explosive charges is visible on the back of the Rover. The East Massif is at the upper right. Readers should note the dark blemish on the East Massif foothill above and slightly to the right of the SEP antenna. This is the outcrop area that Gene notes as he and Jack leave Station 8 at 167:39:41.
Here's the direct link to the hi-res version: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-146-22367HR.jpg
If you know what to look for, you can see the two aerials pointing at Earth, which explains the large amount of dust kicked out by Cernan and Schmitt as they went about their tasks around the rover. And if you view the video footage, you can probably see the TV camera and rover getting jiggled as they remove tools, and later footage will show soil being kicked.
Do you realise that looking at a front-on view of the rover in the position where it stopped after driving forward up the hill, is not a good photo for looking for wheel tracks? Shouldn't you be looking for them in a photo that shows the view behind it?
However, have you looked closely at your photo, just to the right of the rightmost wheel (the left-rear rover wheel)? I can indeed see wheel tracks forming a gentle S-shape, but I can't really tell if that is a fairly close view of one side's tracks, or a distant view of both of them. Viewing more photos taken at that particular place, Station 8, might reveal which. The S-shape is indistinct because of being out of focus and/or affected by camera-shake, but it's certainly there.
When you wrote "I must be seeing the wrong photos you can even see the line between stage and backdrop", did you think this through? Even if you know nothing about photography, TV or stage work, did you consider the moon's diameter or circumference as contrasted with Earth's? Did it not occur to you that the horizon on the moon would be much, much closer than we see Earth's horizon? Do you know anything about the size of the Taurus Littrow Valley, how high its surrounding mountains and hills are, and where the astronauts went on it? (The info is readily available at the ALSJ.) Did you also consider that even when viewing the scenery on the moon with two eyes, the astronauts had great trouble estimating distances due to the complete lack of scaling information and atmospheric haze?
Do you know that two of Buzz Aldrin's allotted tasks were to photograph his boot print and to kick soil for the scientists to view?
By the way, there are people here who certainly do know about photography, TV and stage. Some are professionals, some are experienced amateurs, and some are, like me, retired from one of those trades. There are also people here who work or have worked with spacecraft. So feel free to ask more questions. Many of us like helping people learn about the moon-landings, and it sounds as if you could do with plenty of help.
Here are links to a tiny selection of the better lunar surface photos you might have missed. I'll leave it to you to find and read the captions in the image libraries at the ALSJ.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5902HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5927HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-46-6716HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-46-6806HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-48-7134HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-66-9229HR.jpg Blast marks from the LM's engine
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-66-9324HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-67-9367HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-88-11864HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-86-11602HR.jpg Plenty of rover tracks
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-113-18340HR.jpg John Young's second jump-salute
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-117-18797HR.jpg Distant lunar module from the rover
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20382HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20435HR.jpg Local horizon and further mountains everywhere
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20506HR.jpg Spoilt by lens flare and possibly a blob of numbering ink at bottom right
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-137-20979HR.jpg The broken fender, fixed with maps - note that the "tyres" are made of wire
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-139-21204HR.jpg The distant LM shot with telephoto lens
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-140-21390HR.jpg Very grimy Cernan with reflected Schmitt and Earth
-
Well they clearly didn't "think it" very well.
It never ceases to amaze me that, for someone who claims to be not only a professional photographer but an eminent member of the Royal Photographic Society, David Percy seems to display a never-ending stream of ignorance when it comes to photography and lighting. If you spend much time working around professional lighting for film, theater, or photography, you simply can't help but learn how it works. You don't have to be a master artisan to see, for example, that broad area light sources cast soft-edged shadows.
Much as I would like to ascribe this to inflated claims of expertise, Percy has been shown his errors enough times, and has evaded accountability to demonstrate his "photo rules" in practice, that I believe he is deliberately misleading his readers. I have to interpret his overall behavior as that of someone who knows he's wrong but is simply too interested in making a quick buck by prostituting his alleged expertise.
-
It may also be worth mentioning that, in addition to the low gravity, there was another reason that the rovers left shallower tracks than might be expected. In some videos (I don't have a link just at the moment) it's clear that the mesh construction of the "tires" lifted regolith and deposited it directly behind. IOW, the construction of the rover inherently caused it to partially obscure its own tracks.
-
Well they clearly didn't "think it" very well.
It never ceases to amaze me that, for someone who claims to be not only a professional photographer but an eminent member of the Royal Photographic Society, David Percy seems to display a never-ending stream of ignorance when it comes to photography and lighting. If you spend much time working around professional lighting for film, theater, or photography, you simply can't help but learn how it works. You don't have to be a master artisan to see, for example, that broad area light sources cast soft-edged shadows.
Much as I would like to ascribe this to inflated claims of expertise, Percy has been shown his errors enough times, and has evaded accountability to demonstrate his "photo rules" in practice, that I believe he is deliberately misleading his readers. I have to interpret his overall behavior as that of someone who knows he's wrong but is simply too interested in making a quick buck by prostituting his alleged expertise.
Oh, I very much believe he is an intentional liar. Like Bart Sibrel's porthole/cut-out claim, his transparency theory is proven a lie by unshown (by him) video in the transmission (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKkpfYUhkig).
Another example I believe is figure 20 on page 68 of his book, 'Dark Moon'. (https://books.google.ca/books?id=uqi7qKZ5dIMC&lpg=PP1&dq=dark%20moon%20percy&pg=PA68#v=onepage&q&f=false) He claims it is the full version of the photo when he makes his 'off centre crosshair' claim, but not only is it a version with height added at the top but part of the bottom cut off as well. (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903.jpg) David Percy is nothing more than a scam artist trying to make a buck off people's mistrust.
-
...
David Percy is nothing more than a scam artist trying to make a buck off people's mistrust.
Marcus Allen should be labeled with the same description IMO.
-
...
David Percy is nothing more than a scam artist trying to make a buck off people's mistrust.
Marcus Allen should be labeled with the same description IMO.
I would not doubt it.