ApolloHoax.net

Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: Combat Wombat on August 25, 2019, 08:22:10 PM

Title: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: Combat Wombat on August 25, 2019, 08:22:10 PM
Greetings all, my first post, hope it's in the right section, admin please move if needed. I'm looking at the Apollo Lunar surface photos and noticed this https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157659051610141/with/21496703049/
Double LM shadows, I've seen them on all missions (except XIII of course) and these are the most prominent examples. Only seems to happen when in the LM cabin and affects the LM shadows and nothing else in the picture, man made or natural. They seem extremely mobile too, moving between shots. How does this happen? Thanks
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: AtomicDog on August 25, 2019, 09:10:32 PM
Greetings all, my first post, hope it's in the right section, admin please move if needed. I'm looking at the Apollo Lunar surface photos and noticed this https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157659051610141/with/21496703049/
Double LM shadows, I've seen them on all missions (except XIII of course) and these are the most prominent examples. Only seems to happen when in the LM cabin and affects the LM shadows and nothing else in the picture, man made or natural. They seem extremely mobile too, moving between shots. How does this happen? Thanks

The fact that it is happening only in the LM is a clue: the LM window is double paned - you are getting double reflections of the shadow.
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 26, 2019, 01:54:17 PM
I asked this question some time ago. I can't remember the outcome but your post made me look at it again.

I don't recall seeing it in other missions, but it's very noticable on Apollo 14. Here's an example of part of an image from the magazine you link to, conpared with one taken at a different time that doesn't show the feature (AS14-66-9320):

(https://i.imgur.com/npDtCRF.jpg)

I've adjusted the contrast on the mag 66 one but not the other.

What you can see is that not only is there a reflection of the LM shadow, but also some of the shadows of the small craters around it, offset to the same kind of degree as the shadow.
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: Combat Wombat on September 01, 2019, 09:37:58 PM
Hi, thanks for your feedback, sorry about the delay, been busy. Indeed the LM windows are double paned but don't you only see the double reflection effect from objects on the observation side? I've experienced dual sheet glass on many occasions, on buildings, marine vessels and aircraft but I've never seen anything like this. I've only ever seen clear, strong dual reflections from objects on my side of the glass, never from objects on the far side. If the LM windows possessed such properties then wouldn't that count as a serious design flaw? Imagine landing the thing cross-eyed! The other curious thing here is that it's only the LM shadow and some craters that are doubled, wouldn't the horizon, the many rocks and their shadows be duplicated also? Take a look at this DAC footage taken from Aldrin's (Armstrong's too, briefly) window post EVA, you can clearly see a double shadowed LM. At 0:31 the paler section is on the right by a noticeable margin, the camera pans to the right and rests on the flag then pans left and the paler LM shadow has moved to the left. At 0:41 there's a cut and the LM shadow has no obvious pale sections but at no time do I see any duplication of the thrusters, the horizon, the flag or the rocks below the flag for the duration of the footage in either window. The F stop appears to have been changed during the 0:41 break allowing more natural colours and a less bleached effect. The footage runs for some time, covers many angles through both windows but the double image effect only appears on the LM shadow. Thanks


Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: AtomicDog on September 01, 2019, 09:48:13 PM
There's a double Earth at 1:49 in the video, during orbital earthrise. It's obviously an effect that happened at certain camera and lighting angles, and something that the astronauts quickly got used to.

There are other double reflections in the video during the rendezvous with the CSM, reflecting images from the inside of the cabin. Frankly, I don't see what's supposed to be so unusual.
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: Zakalwe on September 02, 2019, 02:15:02 AM
I've never seen anything like this.

Probably because you've never been in a LM, on the surface of an airless world? ;)
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: Abaddon on September 02, 2019, 07:31:19 AM
I've never seen anything like this.

So what? Just because you have never seen it means it can't possibly be real?  Have you personally ever seen an electron? Are they not real?

And for the record, it is a trivial effect seen in double or triple glazed windows. And I have seen in many times. So what use is your incredulity to anyone, even you?
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: Kiwi on September 02, 2019, 09:06:42 AM
There's a double Earth at 1:49 in the video, during orbital earthrise. It's obviously an effect that happened at certain camera and lighting angles...

The clue is in the double Earth in the black sky below the actual Earth, along with the 0:41 view of the LM shadow with no doubling.

It's impossible to project darkness into a lit area, but we can project light into a dark area, so in the first view of the "doubled" shadow, we're actually seeing a portion of the lit ground superimposed over the dark area. Considering the large difference in brightness, it's no surprise to me that at certain angles the multi-paned window did a little reflecting. Furthermore, it might even be an in-camera effect only and not visible to the naked eye. Multi-coating of lenses to cut down internal reflections was in its infancy during the Apollo missions, and computerised design of lenses hadn't yet been invented.

Back in the 1970s when I first had my own professional darkroom there was a sign on the studio wall next to the darkroom door: "Shut the door or the dark will leak out." And to some visitors' surprise, the interior of the darkroom was painted white.
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: gillianren on September 02, 2019, 10:10:19 AM
I see a double Moon through my double-glazed windows all the time.
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: bknight on September 02, 2019, 10:56:26 AM
I've never seen anything like this.

So what? Just because you have never seen it means it can't possibly be real?  Have you personally ever seen an electron? Are they not real?

And for the record, it is a trivial effect seen in double or triple glazed windows. And I have seen in many times. So what use is your incredulity to anyone, even you?

Indeed, If I can't/don't understand something it must be fake.  And of course If I can't figure something out, then it must be fake.  Two logical fallacies one of which Combat Wombat displays.
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: AtomicDog on September 02, 2019, 12:35:53 PM
Looking at the CSM approach again, there is a clear double reflection off of the metal foil of the CM. As the CSM rolls, you can clearly see the reflection move to match the orientation of the primary highlight. Indeed, just before the clip ends, you can see another, fainter reflection in the same orientation, joining the first.
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: Jason Thompson on September 02, 2019, 03:10:27 PM
Hi, thanks for your feedback, sorry about the delay, been busy. Indeed the LM windows are double paned but don't you only see the double reflection effect from objects on the observation side?

No. It depends primarily on the relative angles and the strength of illumination. You'll see the effect with whichever is the brighter. I've seen a double moon out of a double glazed window on many occasions, for example.

Quote
If the LM windows possessed such properties then wouldn't that count as a serious design flaw?

No, it's a natural property of the material the window is made of. All glass panes do it to some degree. That's basic optics.

Quote
Imagine landing the thing cross-eyed!

Why would this effect be even close to 'landing cross-eyed'? Even with the double image you can still tell which is the 'real' and which the reflection.

Quote
The other curious thing here is that it's only the LM shadow and some craters that are doubled, wouldn't the horizon, the many rocks and their shadows be duplicated also?

Not necessarily. Given the relative wide angle of the camera lens I wouldn't expect the see the entire image duplicated in that way, just certain part of it depending on the relative angles of the optical axis and the window.

Quote
The footage runs for some time, covers many angles through both windows but the double image effect only appears on the LM shadow.

So what do you think is more likely? That you have not fully grasped the optical effects in the imagery, or that somehow this common occurrence is proof of something dodgy and no-one picked it up before publishing the images and footage over the course of a bunch of missions covering a few years until you came along half a century later?
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: smartcooky on September 03, 2019, 03:44:01 AM
Another thing to consider (if it hasn't already been mentioned) is, were the cameras fitted with polarizing filters or even ND or UV filters? If they were, then that could go some part of the way to explaining differing reflection levels in different parts of the image.
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: Combat Wombat on December 01, 2019, 08:18:51 PM
Hello, long time no hear! Been fighting fires up northern NSW, Australia!

No. It depends primarily on the relative angles and the strength of illumination. You'll see the effect with whichever is the brighter. I've seen a double moon out of a double glazed window on many occasions, for example.

Yes, it depends on what is brighter, here's an example of double images through the double-paned glass of the LM. https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21495627468/in/album-72157658638144538/. You'll notice that the image occurs on the brightly lit objects; the horizon, the Earth and the sun's rays on the thrusters, note how darker LM components on the dark background aren't readily duplicated. If you look further in the album the image is contained in you'll see LM shadow images taken through the LM windows. To begin with they seem like single shadows, then it begins to double up and move in different directions but everything else remains single. Rocks,  other shadows, the flag and the horizon. In other images bright objects like ALSEPs and astronauts aren't duplicated. Finally, shadows aren't brightly lit, illuminating them destroys them.

Quote
Combat Wombat said The other curious thing here is that it's only the LM shadow and some craters that are doubled, wouldn't the horizon, the many rocks and their shadows be duplicated also?

Quote
Not necessarily. Given the relative wide angle of the camera lens I wouldn't expect the see the entire image duplicated in that way, just certain part of it depending on the relative angles of the optical axis and the window.

There are images where components of the LM shadow are duplicated but others nearby or adjacent are not. Seems like a very selective physical property and a poor quality camera to take all the way to the moon!!!!

Quote
So what do you think is more likely? That you have not fully grasped the optical effects in the imagery, or that somehow this common occurrence is proof of something dodgy and no-one picked it up before publishing the images and footage over the course of a bunch of missions covering a few years until you came along half a century later?

It's not just me questioning this, I watched the landings as kid and became a NASA fanboy. Long story short, I became aware of the archive a few years ago but it was not until earlier this year that I began to look at it, the stabilized HD DAC footage and LROC images, not impressed. Seems that many of the Apollo images were not readily available until fairly recently and there's many to view, 1000s of them. If they were all available for analysis half a century ago the story could've been quite different. I've searched for explanations, NASA's Apollo Lunar Surface Journal calls these shadows 'dramatic washout'. The moon wiki calls it the 'Heiligenschein effect' https://the-moon.us/wiki/Retro-Reflection_phenomena. People on this forum and others call it an optical effect of the windows, lenses and lens filters but I've never seen any scientific description. I used to do silver halide photography back in the 80s, they look double lit and/or overlaid to me and were probably never meant to see the light of day. I'm surprised they weren't 'lost' like much of  NASA's archives and technologies. My silver halide and 35mm camera are long gone but time permitting I'll see if I can build analogues of LM components and see what transpires under natural and artificial light(s). Till then I'll just annotate some images from the archive and attach them.

Thanks, Combat Wombat
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: JayUtah on December 01, 2019, 09:55:25 PM
There are images where components of the LM shadow are duplicated but others nearby or adjacent are not.

Such as?

Quote
Seems like a very selective physical property and a poor quality camera to take all the way to the moon!!!!

The quality of the camera has little to do with the optical behavior of the scene being photographed.  I have a very expensive set of cameras and lenses, and if I photograph through double glass I often get double images.  Are you sure you're a photographer?

Quote
It's not just me questioning this...

Name three others who are questioning this precise thing.

Quote
I watched the landings as kid and became a NASA fanboy.

Yeah, every hoax theorist says he was a fanboy and was dragged kicking and screaming to the opposite conclusion by the sheer weight of facts.  No, I don't buy it.

Quote
Seems that many of the Apollo images were not readily available until fairly recently...

Nonsense.  They've been available from NASA's photo services contractor since shortly after the missions.  I have prints that date to the early 1970s in my collection.  All you had to do was supply the ID number and pay a fee.

Quote
NASA's Apollo Lunar Surface Journal calls these shadows 'dramatic washout'.

No.

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/images14.html describes the image as "Down-Sun with the dramatic washout."  Nothing there says "washout" refers to the shadows.  Since the surface background is devoid of detail, and since that's the typical photographic meaning of "washout," I strongly dispute your interpretation.  You're reading things into the source material that aren't there.

Quote
The moon wiki calls it the 'Heiligenschein effect' https://the-moon.us/wiki/Retro-Reflection_phenomena.

No, that doesn't refer to the shadows either.  You're simply mining quotes from pages that use these photographs to illustrate various phenomena and assuming they must be trying to explain the shadows.

Quote
...but I've never seen any scientific description.

Why are those explanations non-scientific?  What in your mind would qualify as a "scientific description" of what's going on?  Does a reference to a commonly observed phenomenon in similar circumstances necessitate a "scientific" explanation?

Quote
...they look double lit and/or overlaid to me...

No.  That doesn't account for the other effects that are clearly the result of interreflection.

Quote
Till then I'll just annotate some images from the archive and attach them.

You're not very good at analyzing images.
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: Jason Thompson on December 02, 2019, 08:18:52 AM
Hello, long time no hear! Been fighting fires up northern NSW, Australia!

I've seen some of the reports. I'm glad to know you're OK and hope your efforts were somewhat successful!

Quote
If you look further in the album the image is contained in you'll see LM shadow images taken through the LM windows. To begin with they seem like single shadows, then it begins to double up and move in different directions but everything else remains single. Rocks,  other shadows, the flag and the horizon. In other images bright objects like ALSEPs and astronauts aren't duplicated. Finally, shadows aren't brightly lit, illuminating them destroys them.

It's not the shadow that is duplicated, it's the bright background. The shadow 'duplication' effect is caused by the overlaying and offsetting of a faint duplicate of the brighter part of the image. The overlaid ghost image is washed out by the brighter primary image, and only becomes apparent in large dark areas such as shadow or the black lunar sky. Any shadow smaller than the degree of offset will appear to be 'single', and if the offset isn't shifted 'upwards' relative to the horizon the horizon will not be duplicated. Notice how in the original image you linked to the duplication is 'above' the brighter things.

Quote
There are images where components of the LM shadow are duplicated but others nearby or adjacent are not. Seems like a very selective physical property and a poor quality camera to take all the way to the moon!!!!

See above, and it has nothing to do with the camera. The effect would be seen with any camera, since it is a result of looking through the multiple panes of LM windows.

Quote
It's not just me questioning this,

Name someone else who is. Then find someone with actual qualifications in optics or photography who is questioning it.

Quote
I watched the landings as kid and became a NASA fanboy. Long story short,

Heard it all before. "I used to be a believer until I saw this one arbitrary thing that convinced me the whole lot was faked."

Again, which is more likely: that you have uncovered the evidence of a massive hoax that has fooled the world and all its experts for over 5 decades by looking at some freely available stuff online, or that you are simply wrong about how 'anomalous' this actually is?

Quote
Seems that many of the Apollo images were not readily available until fairly recently

Cobblers. The entire Apollo image catalogue has been available online for many years, and before then was available from source. Don't make the same elementary mistake of so many other hoax believers of confusing 'is not available on the internet for me to freely view without getting off my backside' with 'is not available at all'. There were ways to get hold of those images dating back to when they were first developed. It just needed a little more effort. It was not, however, beyond the reach of joe public to do it before the internet came along.

Quote
If they were all available for analysis half a century ago the story could've been quite different.

They were, and it isn't.

Quote
People on this forum and others call it an optical effect of the windows, lenses and lens filters but I've never seen any scientific description.

Er, that is a scientific description. Take it from a scientist...
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: gillianren on December 02, 2019, 10:43:28 AM
I'd also note that "which is more likely, a misunderstanding or a hoax?" still wasn't actually answered.
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: JayUtah on December 02, 2019, 04:53:13 PM
I'm glad to know you're OK and hope your efforts were somewhat successful!

Ditto.  My previous response was rushed and not particularly civil.  Always good to hear that first responders are staying as far out of harm's way as their job lets them.  I too live in a part of the world prone to wildfires.  I can sympathize.

Quote
The overlaid ghost image is washed out by the brighter primary image, and only becomes apparent in large dark areas such as shadow or the black lunar sky.

In photography, we say something is washed out normally because the exposure is set such that the dynamic range is not enough to differentiate detail in the brighter areas of the image.  This is clearly what's happening in the upper left portion of the lunar landscape.  However we can wash out detail by other means.  Imagine the sun shining on a dirty window, and you're trying photograph something dark through it.  The scatter on the window, if it intervenes directly between you and the dark thing you want to photograph, will wipe out the detail in the darks.  You can see this effect directly, but you perceive it as just, "Gee, it's hard to see out of this dirty window."  In photography lingo, that would also be an appropriate usage of "washed out."  But I honestly don't think that's what the ALSJ authors are intending to say with respect to this image.

I have more to say on the subject of when artifacts of interreflection should be seen and when they shouldn't but let's see if C.W. gets this far.

Quote
The effect would be seen with any camera, since it is a result of looking through the multiple panes of LM windows.

Pedantically speaking, when interreflection occurs it can be seen with the naked eye and with any camera and any unfiltered lens.  However, it is very likely the reflection can be eliminated using any of various polarizing filters.  Reflections almost always come to us polarized in a different direction than the primary image.  Properly aligning the polarizing filter will probably eliminating the undesirable reflection.  Put simply, I can take my $2,700 camera body with a $5,000 lens and photograph the interreflection if I can see it with the naked eye.  Conversely I can put a $24 circular polarizer in front of a $30 webcam and make the reflection go away.

Why weren't the Apollo lenses fitted with polarizing filters, then?  You definitely don't want them in place the whole time.  If your goal is to faithfully photograph what you see, you don't want a polarizer.  And the lens hoods were fixed, with no option to accept a filter.  None of the photography contemplated for the mission needed filters.

Quote
Then find someone with actual qualifications in optics or photography who is questioning it.

Questioning it in the sense of suspecting it's not a valid photograph taken in the field as claimed.  Any photographer that studies historical photographs spends a lot of time just idly wondering what things are in photos, what caused various effects, etc.  I would certainly expect people (professionals and amateurs both) to be curious about why these effects appear.  I wouldn't expect them to jump so quickly to the conclusion that the photos aren't what they say they are.

Quote
There were ways to get hold of those images dating back to when they were first developed. It just needed a little more effort. It was not, however, beyond the reach of joe public to do it before the internet came along.

Pre-Internet authors like Kaysing and Rene also talked about the "suppressed" Apollo record, because they were able to get photographs that they rightly claimed weren't often seen.  Prior to the Internet, most people saw only the Apollo photos that were editorially interesting.  That's not NASA's fault.  That's the fault of the people who wrote the books and articles and made the films.  Most of Roll 37, for example, is quite boring.  No commercial editor is going to publish that in its entirety in the context of something aimed at the general public.  So there's the disconnection between "What I've often seen" and "What is available."

Quote
Er, that is a scientific description. Take it from a scientist...

I never know what to do with the arguments that go, "Yes, you gave me an answer, but I want a scientific answer."  I mean, obviously it's a stab at ad hoc revision.  But we rarely get around to determining what a "scientific" answer is to some particular question.  Does that mean it has to be the subject of some scholarly paper, rigorously peer reviewed and thoroughly documented?  Or even just public discussion among people we might think of as relevant scientists?  Does NASA have to get involved?  These options always strike me as a plea for attention.  Conspiracy theorists want to believe they're serious researchers who have found serious problems, and only an edict from very important people is worth their attention.  That's pure ego.

But then I wonder whether they want an answer that conforms to scientific methods of inquiry and test.  Well, here we have it.  We formulate a hypothesis based on known principles of optics and incorporating the physical elements we know to be present in the purported venue of this photograph.  We deduce that if the hypothesis we imagine is true, it would affect more than just the shadows.  It would have the potential to affect all visible features seen through the window.  Then we look in the available data to see whether such shifted non-shadow features appear.  They do, so this falsifies the notion that two light sources are casting two shadows.  That's the hypothetico-deductive model at work.
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: ApolloEnthusiast on December 03, 2019, 07:59:24 AM

I never know what to do with the arguments that go, "Yes, you gave me an answer, but I want a scientific answer." 
I've always interpreted that as wanting a detailed description of the physics involved in the answer.  In this case, he is specifically referring to "optical effects of the windows, lenses, and lens filters."  I'm inferring that the reason he finds that insufficient is because he doesn't know the physics involved with reaching that conclusion and wants an answer that incorporates teaching him all of the optical science that is needed to understand the 'why'.  I may be, however,  just projecting my own personal need to understand the underlying principles of things onto other people.

And while this may not be the case with this particular individual, sometimes even taking the time to give an answer that includes teaching the person the underlying science ends up being fruitless.  The explanation can be dismissed as being too esoteric if the math involved is out of reach, or sometimes the person explaining is just dismissed as a "shill", spouting rhetoric that they've been "programmed" to repeat. 



Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: gillianren on December 03, 2019, 10:47:00 AM
My two-year-old is often better at dealing with answers than some of these people; she hasn't hit the "why?" stage yet.