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.
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: Combat Wombat on January 19, 2020, 09:21:36 PM
Hello, been busy hitting the fires. Got a respite with a little rain.

In July last year I put the double shadow question here https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/37154/why-are-there-double-shadows-in-this-apollo-14-magazine. It was seen by an Argentinian Physicist call Dr Luis Bilbao who wrote a paper on it here https://www.aulis.com/double_shadow.htm. He says it was probably double lit. I've had a good look at the Aulis site and I realized straight away that it won't win any popularity prizes but just have a look and if there's physicist here then perhaps that person can provide a counter argument and there's no need to name call.

The consensus here is that inter-reflectivity causes the double shadow effect. I've scoured the archive for inter-reflective images and found quite a few taken from orbit which I won't post here because I'm focusing on the surface images, they seem much rarer and the effect is weak, except for LM shadows, which are very common and can display some interesting artifacts when the contrast is enhanced.

In this image, the horizon is duplicated, the LM shadow and other objects seem singular.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21471923748/in/album-72157658592471809/
In this image, the bright sunlight reflecting off the thruster is duplicated, nothing else is.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21038752703/in/album-72157658592471809/

In these two images taken through the LM window you'll see two distinct helmet shadows on the OPS. The suit, red stripes, other shadows, rocks and other items appear singular.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21657538346/in/album-72157656723857913/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21672141752/in/album-72157656723857913/
Using my Galant fireman's helmet, I've tried duplicating this effect using sunlight, cement sheets, foil etc as reflectors but can only achieve a brightening of the shadow, not two distinct shadows. I tried looking at it through two parallel sheets of glass, minimal duplication of bright areas, shadow unaffected. Two shadows are easily achievable using two closely aligned light sources.

I've been randomly enhancing the contrast of LM shadows, I've attached a couple here, the image numbers are written on the images themselves if you want search for the originals. I've never seen shadows like this and there are dozens of them.





Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: Abaddon on January 19, 2020, 11:28:34 PM
Hello, been busy hitting the fires. Got a respite with a little rain.
OK, that is not a pleasant place to be. You have my sympathy.

However, that is not to forgive the following wild claims.

In July last year I put the double shadow question here https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/37154/why-are-there-double-shadows-in-this-apollo-14-magazine.
Sure, but why did you glom onto the crank answer in preference to the other fine answers given?

It was seen by an Argentinian Physicist call Dr Luis Bilbao who wrote a paper on it here https://www.aulis.com/double_shadow.htm. He says it was probably double lit. I've had a good look at the Aulis site and I realized straight away that it won't win any popularity prizes but just have a look
I looked and it is just the usual aulis crap. Do you not realise that aulis simply makes things up? Including fantasy experts? Really?
and if there's physicist here then perhaps that person can provide a counter argument and there's no need to name call.
This site is replete with subject matter experts.

The consensus here is that inter-reflectivity causes the double shadow effect.
Of course, because it is a well known effect.

I've scoured the archive for inter-reflective images and found quite a few taken from orbit which I won't post here because I'm focusing on the surface images, they seem much rarer and the effect is weak, except for LM shadows, which are very common and can display some interesting artifacts when the contrast is enhanced.
Seriously? You are flat out stating that you are going to eliminate all examples that do not suit your claim?

In this image, the horizon is duplicated, the LM shadow and other objects seem singular.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21471923748/in/album-72157658592471809/
In this image, the bright sunlight reflecting off the thruster is duplicated, nothing else is.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21038752703/in/album-72157658592471809/
"seems"? "Nothing else"? Does trigonometry mean nothing to you?

In these two images taken through the LM window you'll see two distinct helmet shadows on the OPS. The suit, red stripes, other shadows, rocks and other items appear singular.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21657538346/in/album-72157656723857913/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21672141752/in/album-72157656723857913/
"Appear"?

Using my Galant fireman's helmet, I've tried duplicating this effect using sunlight, cement sheets, foil etc as reflectors but can only achieve a brightening of the shadow, not two distinct shadows. I tried looking at it through two parallel sheets of glass, minimal duplication of bright areas, shadow unaffected. Two shadows are easily achievable using two closely aligned light sources.
Your fireman's helmet is not an LM window, and I can replicate the effect with a camera and a double glazed window at will. Your inability is not counted as evidence.

I've been randomly enhancing the contrast of LM shadows, I've attached a couple here, the image numbers are written on the images themselves if you want search for the originals. I've never seen shadows like this and there are dozens of them.
Nope. What you have been doing is pushing sliders in photoshop or similar until you get a result you like. That is all.
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: Allan F on January 20, 2020, 01:41:16 AM

In July last year I put the double shadow question here . It was seen by an Argentinian Physicist call Dr Luis Bilbao who wrote a paper on it here https://www.aulis.com/double_shadow.htm. He says it was probably double lit.

First of all, Aulis "physicist" is 99.9% a made-up person. Can you find anything about that person elsewhere? A real doctor of physics would have many publications to his name, AND contact information available. Aulis "experts" are usually made-up like a doctor in a bad sit-com.

Your "experiments", were they made with quartz glass with metal-vapour coatings?
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: smartcooky on January 20, 2020, 02:06:18 AM
I looked and it is just the usual aulis crap. Do you not realise that aulis simply makes things up? Including fantasy experts? Really?

Indeed, and in this case, this article purportedly by Professor Luis Ernesto Bilbao is a complete fantasy.

I have taken the liberty of examining all of the articles I can find written by Dr Bilbao (who appears to be an expert in plasma physics and fluid dynamics, not photogrammetry).

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=nPFZCowAAAAJ&hl=en

There appears nowhere in that list an article entitled "Analysis of the double shadow in Lunar Module images" (in fact, the only place that title appears is at Aulis - now I wonder why that is?)

Fact check: Failed

Nope. What you have been doing is pushing sliders in photoshop or similar until you get a result you like. That is all.

And that is the very worst kind of confirmation bias.

Its bad enough that CTs only believe evidence that fits their cloud-cuckoo land theories and reject everything else; but it gets a whole order of magnitude worse when they start manufacturing that evidence themselves
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 20, 2020, 04:47:54 AM
Hello, been busy hitting the fires. Got a respite with a little rain.

I would not want to be where you are now. Good work trying to tackle those fires.

Quote
It was seen by an Argentinian Physicist call Dr Luis Bilbao who wrote a paper on it here https://www.aulis.com/double_shadow.htm.

As others have pointed out, Aulis are not above making up people to support their ideas, nor are they above inflating someone's credentials to make them appear an authoritative source. Others have already pointed out that if this is the same Dr Luis Bilbao listed on the Google Scholar page, he is not an expert in photographic analysis. Just having a PhD doesn't make him an expert in the subject matter under discussion.

Quote
He says it was probably double lit.

Actually he offers that as a hypothesis at the end, but casually mentions and glosses over the fact that this hypothesis does not actually fit some of the observations.

Quote
I've had a good look at the Aulis site and I realized straight away that it won't win any popularity prizes

It's not a matter of popularity, it is a matter of Aulis being consistently shown to be wrong and in many cases outright frauds.

Quote
The consensus here is that inter-reflectivity causes the double shadow effect. I've scoured the archive for inter-reflective images and found quite a few taken from orbit which I won't post here because I'm focusing on the surface images

So we take that as a concession that such a phenomenon is in fact in play?

Quote
In this image, the horizon is duplicated, the LM shadow and other objects seem singular.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21471923748/in/album-72157658592471809/
In this image, the bright sunlight reflecting off the thruster is duplicated, nothing else is.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21038752703/in/album-72157658592471809/

Now please take a moment to consider how this can be caused by the image being 'double-lit'. Shadows yes, but horizons and bright spots cannot be explained this way. On the other hand they do fit the optical effects of looking through multiple layers of glass with a complex optical instrument.

Quote
In these two images taken through the LM window you'll see two distinct helmet shadows on the OPS. The suit, red stripes, other shadows, rocks and other items appear singular.

Now this one actually could be double-lit, since the astronaut is standing close to a large object covered in reflective foil.

Quote
Using my Galant fireman's helmet, I've tried duplicating this effect using sunlight, cement sheets, foil etc as reflectors but can only achieve a brightening of the shadow, not two distinct shadows. I tried looking at it through two parallel sheets of glass, minimal duplication of bright areas, shadow unaffected.

And? Your inability to replicate it using different materials doesn't actually count for much in a serious analysis of the situation.
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: JayUtah on January 20, 2020, 10:29:08 AM
Hello, been busy hitting the fires. Got a respite with a little rain.

Glad to hear it.  Keep up the good work.

Quote
I've had a good look at the Aulis site and I realized straight away that it won't win any popularity prizes...

Correct.  We here -- and I especially -- have a lot more experience with Aulis and their authors than you do.  The reason they're not well regarded is because they have a long, documented history of just making up experts that don't exist, and in other cases, attributing to existing experts things they never said or did.  So before you attempt to put the ball back in our court, you'll need a lot more than self-published article attributed to someone whose qualifications are irrelevant to the topic and who -- quite honestly -- probably doesn't even know that Aulis is using his name.

Quote
...but just have a look and if there's physicist here then perhaps that person can provide a counter argument and there's no need to name call.

Questioning purported qualifications that are fishy on their face is not name-calling.  Nor is pointing to Aulis' record of intentional deception.  You're holding this guy up as your expert.  It's your responsibility to lay the proper foundation.  So get busy and do that.

As for the physics, you've already been given the physicist's explanation.  You reject it out of hand.  Asking for more physics won't fix that.

Quote
which are very common and can display some interesting artifacts when the contrast is enhanced.

Contrast expansion is the most naively used tool by the amateur photographic analysis.  Give me the statistical controls you used on the histogram to guarantee that your contrast expansion is valid.

Quote
Using my Galant fireman's helmet, I've tried duplicating this effect using sunlight, cement sheets, foil etc as reflectors but can only achieve a brightening of the shadow, not two distinct shadows.I tried looking at it through two parallel sheets of glass, minimal duplication of bright areas, shadow unaffected.

Do you think your partial duplication of the results is due to the deficiency of the explanation, or the deficiency of your experiment to precisely involve the right kinds of light sources and reflectors?

Quote
Two shadows are easily achievable using two closely aligned light sources.

But not two horizons.  The double horizon is conclusive proof it's a reflective effect.
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: gillianren on January 20, 2020, 11:34:48 AM
Us: "Here are multiple examples of your source just making things up when they feel like it."

Conspiracists: "Why are you calling them names?  Just attack their arguments!"
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: JayUtah on January 20, 2020, 11:52:29 AM
Indeed, when purportedly expert opinion is offered, testing the foundation of expertise is expressly on the table.  In fact, it's probably the most pertinent thing.  Trying to write it off as name-calling or ad hominem argumentation is a one-sided wish.

Related is when someone says things like, "Here, this opinion comes from an expert in high-energy physics.  Only another such expert can rebut him."   Well, no.  The problem at hand has nothing to do with high-energy physics, fluid dynamics, or anything of the like.  The foundation of expertise must support the structure that's built upon it, not some other lofty structure unrelated to our study.  On the subject of studio lighting, photography, and reflection, I would much sooner trust someone who had no college degree at all but, say, five years' experience working professionally on motion picture sets.

A PhD is not a synonym for Very Smart Person.  Most often it merely means someone who has done independent academic research in a narrow field -- increasingly these days, a very narrow field.
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: AtomicDog on January 20, 2020, 12:21:18 PM
Combat Wombat, it is interesting that you discount orbital photos that show double images because they contradict the explanation that you are looking for. The scientific method calls for following the evidence, wherever it leads.
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: smartcooky on January 20, 2020, 01:45:32 PM
Combat Wombat, it is interesting that you discount orbital photos that show double images because they contradict the explanation that you are looking for. The scientific method calls for following the evidence, wherever it leads.

A time-honoured CT & HB technique - dismiss any and all evidence that doesn't support your pre-determined conclusions.
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: Combat Wombat on January 20, 2020, 02:35:06 PM
Combat Wombat, it is interesting that you discount orbital photos that show double images because they contradict the explanation that you are looking for. The scientific method calls for following the evidence, wherever it leads.

Sure, from magazine AS14-66. Contains shots through the LM forward and docking windows from both surface and orbit. Bright objects on dark backgrounds https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656723857913/page2
From AS11-37. Contains orbital, pre and post EVA shots. Double earth, horizon on dark background from orbit. Double LM shadows only on surface post EVA, no comparative doubling of horizon, rocks, craters or human artifacts.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157658638144538.

Thanks, C.W



Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: AtomicDog on January 20, 2020, 02:58:54 PM
Combat Wombat, the double paned window theory explains BOTH the orbital and the ground photos.
Your "theory" explains only the ground photos.
Which is more likely to be correct?
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 20, 2020, 04:31:42 PM
Sure, from magazine AS14-66. Contains shots through the LM forward and docking windows from both surface and orbit. Bright objects on dark backgrounds

(Emphasis mine)

Combat Wombat, this is exactly the point. What you are describing in terms of double shadows is actually double brightly lit lunar surface. It becomes apparent in the LM shadow because that shadow is big enough to show the effect. Whether you see a 'double LM shadow' or double horizon depends on the offset of the 'ghost' image over the primary image. You don't see double crater or rock shadows because they are too small to show the effect within the shadow (that is the shadow in the main and ghost image don't overlap), and the surrounding surface is too bright to easily visually discern the sightly less bright area where the 'double shadow' of the crater or rock is. Same on the horizon. The difference in brightness is not easily picked out if the ghost image horizon lies below the primary image horizon, but is easily distinguished in the black sky if the ghost image horizon is above the primary. THis was what I said to you some months ago.

Now, here are some questions for you to ponder:

Why, if these 'double shadows' are caused by multiple light sources, are they only apparent when photographed through a window? This double effect should be seen in plenty of other images as well from the lunar surface if it is caused by something outside the scene and not the window.

Why, if trying to fake a scene lit by one source, would they even have used multiple lights in the first place?
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: Von_Smith on January 20, 2020, 05:47:54 PM
Combat Wombat, it is interesting that you discount orbital photos that show double images because they contradict the explanation that you are looking for. The scientific method calls for following the evidence, wherever it leads.

Sure, from magazine AS14-66. Contains shots through the LM forward and docking windows from both surface and orbit. Bright objects on dark backgrounds https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656723857913/page2
From AS11-37. Contains orbital, pre and post EVA shots. Double earth, horizon on dark background from orbit. Double LM shadows only on surface post EVA, no comparative doubling of horizon, rocks, craters or human artifacts.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157658638144538.

Thanks, C.W

I mis-read your post at first, but I want to point out that there *are* double images of the earth taken from the surface on the AS14-66 roll.  It's not just shadows of the LM.
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: smartcooky on January 20, 2020, 11:05:07 PM
The degree of inter-reflectivity caused by shooting though windows and glass depends on a number of criteria

Thickness of the glass in single pane glass.
Optical quality of the glass.
Separation between sheets of glass in double glazed windows
Curvature of the glass
The angle at which the photo is taken (w.r.t. the glass)

There are other criteria, but those are the biggies!

Additionally, cropping, enlarging and rotating the image will all affect the apparent inter-reflectivity in the final image.


Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: smartcooky on January 20, 2020, 11:05:40 PM
dupe
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: smartcooky on January 20, 2020, 11:12:00 PM
Sure, from magazine AS14-66. Contains shots through the LM forward and docking windows from both surface and orbit. Bright objects on dark backgrounds

(Emphasis mine)

Combat Wombat, this is exactly the point. What you are describing in terms of double shadows is actually double brightly lit lunar surface. It becomes apparent in the LM shadow because that shadow is big enough to show the effect. Whether you see a 'double LM shadow' or double horizon depends on the offset of the 'ghost' image over the primary image. You don't see double crater or rock shadows because they are too small to show the effect within the shadow (that is the shadow in the main and ghost image don't overlap), and the surrounding surface is too bright to easily visually discern the sightly less bright area where the 'double shadow' of the crater or rock is. Same on the horizon. The difference in brightness is not easily picked out if the ghost image horizon lies below the primary image horizon, but is easily distinguished in the black sky if the ghost image horizon is above the primary. THis was what I said to you some months ago.

Now, here are some questions for you to ponder:

Why, if these 'double shadows' are caused by multiple light sources, are they only apparent when photographed through a window? This double effect should be seen in plenty of other images as well from the lunar surface if it is caused by something outside the scene and not the window.

Why, if trying to fake a scene lit by one source, would they even have used multiple lights in the first place?

If I may, I will add another questions for CW to ponder

Why, if these 'double shadows' are caused by multiple light sources, are they parallel? Shadows caused by multiple light sources diverge and at angle equal to the angle between the light sources as subtended by the source of the shadow.   
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: Abaddon on January 20, 2020, 11:16:43 PM
I shall be brief. It has been a trying day in the real world and I am tired and close to a rage rant, which would not be a pleasant spectacle.

To summarise...
CW you do not understand anything from the list following
Physics
Optics
Celestial mechanics
Orbital mechanincs
Mensuration
3d Spatial reasoning
Environmental design

Want me to continue with that list? I could, but I am in a serious strop right now so best not. I would merely start swearing out of sheer frustration and boy can I swear. This would not be a productive route.

I weep for the fate of humanity if this is all we have to offer. The aliens don't need to invade. They must simply patiently wait. We will do the rest to ourselves. 
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: smartcooky on January 21, 2020, 01:32:02 AM
If I may, I will add another questions for CW to ponder

Why, if these 'double shadows' are caused by multiple light sources, are they parallel? Shadows caused by multiple light sources diverge and at angle equal to the angle between the light sources as subtended by the source of the shadow.   

Correction to my last post. I should have said the angle between the light sources at the source (vertex) of the shadow

"Vertex" is the correct description of the shadow source in this context, not "subtended by"
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: onebigmonkey on January 21, 2020, 02:27:06 AM
Combat Wombat, it is interesting that you discount orbital photos that show double images because they contradict the explanation that you are looking for. The scientific method calls for following the evidence, wherever it leads.

Sure, from magazine AS14-66. Contains shots through the LM forward and docking windows from both surface and orbit. Bright objects on dark backgrounds https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656723857913/page2
From AS11-37. Contains orbital, pre and post EVA shots. Double earth, horizon on dark background from orbit. Double LM shadows only on surface post EVA, no comparative doubling of horizon, rocks, craters or human artifacts.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157658638144538.

Thanks, C.W

I mis-read your post at first, but I want to point out that there *are* double images of the earth taken from the surface on the AS14-66 roll.  It's not just shadows of the LM.

Indeed, and those double images of Earth (taken through the docking window of the LM) reveal something else, namely Venus, exactly where it should be at the end of EVA-2. The presence of Venus is a pointer to something that is common to many that question the Apollo images' veracity: literally missing the bigger picture.

- Zooming on on a double image of Earth (through a double glazed window) but missing the fact that it is astronomically and meteorologically accurate.

- Picking out a double shadow onthe lunar surface but neglecting the fact that there are details recorded on the surface that could only have been photographed by actually being there.

- Identifying something unusual in a couple of photographs while ignoring the context of all the other images in a magazine that clearly place the photographer in cislunar space, lunar orbit or on the lunar surface.

The cart is being put before the horse - instead of saying "These photographs of the lunar surface contain an odd phenomenon, what could cause that?", the question is being wrongly transposed into "There is an odd phenomenon here, it can't therefore be on the lunar surface".

One thing is puzzling me though - that shadow 'hole' in AS12-48-7024 - what could be causing that? I'm guessing light bouncing off a part of the LM.
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: Zakalwe on January 21, 2020, 09:04:31 AM
Bright objects on dark backgrounds

Ever looked at a full/nearly full Moon on a clear night through double-glazed windows? If not, then try it and get back to us.

https://twitter.com/MentalJargon/status/1090869388264292353

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DyOL7DTX0AAQkyI?format=jpg&name=small)

Is it your contention that this random image off Twitter is also faked or shot in a studio somewhere?
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: Allan F on January 22, 2020, 10:50:52 AM

One thing is puzzling me though - that shadow 'hole' in AS12-48-7024 - what could be causing that? I'm guessing light bouncing off a part of the LM.

No, it is sunlight passing between the ascent and descent stage. Just beside the ascent engine bell.
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: onebigmonkey on January 22, 2020, 12:31:04 PM

One thing is puzzling me though - that shadow 'hole' in AS12-48-7024 - what could be causing that? I'm guessing light bouncing off a part of the LM.

No, it is sunlight passing between the ascent and descent stage. Just beside the ascent engine bell.

I had a vague recollection of that as an explanation but couldn't find similar examples or photos of the LM that showed the gap :)
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: Combat Wombat on January 22, 2020, 06:19:42 PM

I mis-read your post at first, but I want to point out that there *are* double images of the earth taken from the surface on the AS14-66 roll.  It's not just shadows of the LM.

They are taken from the surface, through the double-paned docking window from within the LM. Unless they climbed in then out again took, half a dozen shots then re-entered the LM.

Look at the sequence of shots.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656723857913/page2
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: Combat Wombat on January 22, 2020, 06:41:44 PM

One thing is puzzling me though - that shadow 'hole' in AS12-48-7024 - what could be causing that? I'm guessing light bouncing off a part of the LM.

No, it is sunlight passing between the ascent and descent stage. Just beside the ascent engine bell.

I had a vague recollection of that as an explanation but couldn't find similar examples or photos of the LM that showed the gap :)

This is from A14 but I can't find any clear images on A12 but is this the hole in question? https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21672156762/in/album-72157656723857913/. It's just above and left of the UNITED STATES sticker. Is that the hole that made this? (See attached)

Thanks
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: Allan F on January 22, 2020, 07:22:29 PM

One thing is puzzling me though - that shadow 'hole' in AS12-48-7024 - what could be causing that? I'm guessing light bouncing off a part of the LM.

No, it is sunlight passing between the ascent and descent stage. Just beside the ascent engine bell.

I had a vague recollection of that as an explanation but couldn't find similar examples or photos of the LM that showed the gap :)

That is straight from ALSJ.
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: Allan F on January 22, 2020, 07:24:16 PM

I mis-read your post at first, but I want to point out that there *are* double images of the earth taken from the surface on the AS14-66 roll.  It's not just shadows of the LM.

They are taken from the surface, through the double-paned docking window from within the LM. Unless they climbed in then out again took, half a dozen shots then re-entered the LM.

Look at the sequence of shots.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656723857913/page2

You DO know that the Hasselblad cameras used had the ability to take a film magazine off of the camera, replace it with another, shoot some pictures, and then switch back to the first magazine again?
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: Von_Smith on January 22, 2020, 11:02:24 PM

I mis-read your post at first, but I want to point out that there *are* double images of the earth taken from the surface on the AS14-66 roll.  It's not just shadows of the LM.

They are taken from the surface, through the double-paned docking window from within the LM. Unless they climbed in then out again took, half a dozen shots then re-entered the LM.

Look at the sequence of shots.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656723857913/page2

Right, so you already understand that every effect you are talking about, including the seeming double LM shadow, can be produced simply by taking a photograph through double-paned glass.  And in fact, the only time we see those effects is in photos taken through such glass.  So what is left of your contention for multiple light sources?
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: Combat Wombat on January 23, 2020, 12:21:52 AM
Bright objects on dark backgrounds

Ever looked at a full/nearly full Moon on a clear night through double-glazed windows? If not, then try it and get back to us.

https://twitter.com/MentalJargon/status/1090869388264292353

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DyOL7DTX0AAQkyI?format=jpg&name=small)

Is it your contention that this random image off Twitter is also faked or shot in a studio somewhere?

I know this happens and it's very weak as your photo demonstrates, doesn’t come close to the dramatic effect we see in A14 and A12. Taking a snap of a brightly lit Earth or CM can but not always yields an inter-reflection but I've looked at dozens of orbital photos now and apart from the occasional and very weak double horizon I haven't seen duplication of Lunar surface features. Anyway, I'm not talking about the orbital photos I'm talking about an effect that dramatically doubles shadows and little else apart from a crater shadow and the occasional horizon on the Lunar surface through the LM windows. Dark objects on light backgrounds, can you duplicate that on Earth using natural sunlight or a single artificial light at night? If I was to make a replica of an LM window, took it to an appropriate place, a concrete parking lot or a sand flat for example in full sunlight would I see double images of everything in view? In the same parking lot or sand flat, illuminated at night by a single powerful light would I see anything remotely similar? If it's a common effect it should be easily duplicated but I've yet to see anything. Last time I flew was November, had a seat next to a double-paned window that readily provided double images of objects on the observer side of the window but external objects, wings, livery and shadows on the concrete runway were single despite being brightly lit. Flown dozens of times, sat in the cockpits and seats of vintage aircraft with double-paned windows. Nothing.
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: Combat Wombat on January 23, 2020, 02:04:59 AM

I mis-read your post at first, but I want to point out that there *are* double images of the earth taken from the surface on the AS14-66 roll.  It's not just shadows of the LM.

They are taken from the surface, through the double-paned docking window from within the LM. Unless they climbed in then out again took, half a dozen shots then re-entered the LM.

Look at the sequence of shots.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656723857913/page2

You DO know that the Hasselblad cameras used had the ability to take a film magazine off of the camera, replace it with another, shoot some pictures, and then switch back to the first magazine again?

Indeed they did change magazines, but this was taken from inside the LM post EVA 2 using the surface camera. https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/images14.html#Mag66

Quote
AS14-66-9327 (OF300) ( 67k or 1100k )
This photo of the Earth was taken through the rendezvous window over Al's station. It may have been taken after EVA-2. A reason for suspecting this is that Al took some pictures of Earth from the bottom of the ladder at 135:03:42 and may have decided to try some similar shots thru the rendezvous window.

You'll no doubt observe that the Earth is fully duplicated in some shots but the rivets don't appear to share the same effect, even though they're bright objects on a dark background, seems to affect only the Earth and what a wonky crescent Earth it is! Zoom in! Changes from shot to shot!
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 23, 2020, 02:33:48 AM
Anyway, I'm not talking about the orbital photos I'm talking about an effect that dramatically doubles shadows and little else apart from a crater shadow and the occasional horizon on the Lunar surface through the LM windows. Dark objects on light backgrounds

How many times am I going to have to say that it is NOT a duplication of a dark shadow on a bright background, but a duplication of the bright background on a dark shadow (or sometimes the bright horizon on the dark sky), and therefore entirely in keeping with the other duplications being taled about? I have now explained this to you three times.
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: smartcooky on January 23, 2020, 04:22:33 AM
CW

How about you stop trying to dodge the hard questions.

You can start by answering Jason's two questions...

Why, if these 'double shadows' are caused by multiple light sources, are they only apparent when photographed through a window? This double effect should be seen in plenty of other images as well from the lunar surface if it is caused by something outside the scene and not the window.

Why, if trying to fake a scene lit by one source, would they even have used multiple lights in the first place?

And you can continue by answering mine...

Why, if these 'double shadows' are caused by multiple light sources, are they parallel? Shadows caused by multiple light sources diverge and at angle equal to the angle between the light sources at the vertex (source) of the shadow.
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: Von_Smith on January 23, 2020, 07:40:22 AM
Bright objects on dark backgrounds

Ever looked at a full/nearly full Moon on a clear night through double-glazed windows? If not, then try it and get back to us.

https://twitter.com/MentalJargon/status/1090869388264292353

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DyOL7DTX0AAQkyI?format=jpg&name=small)

Is it your contention that this random image off Twitter is also faked or shot in a studio somewhere?

Dark objects on light backgrounds, can you duplicate that on Earth using natural sunlight or a single artificial light at night?

If by dark objects you mean shadows, sure. 

https://d2v9y0dukr6mq2.cloudfront.net/video/thumbnail/kG-5Wkc/videoblocks-airplane-flying-shadow-touching-down-at-airport-runway_b3rj79qk_thumbnail-full07.png

Check out the edges of the airplane's shadow, especially the front edge of the top wing.
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: Kiwi on January 23, 2020, 08:02:20 AM
Anyway, I'm not talking about the orbital photos I'm talking about an effect that dramatically doubles shadows and little else apart from a crater shadow and the occasional horizon on the Lunar surface through the LM windows. Dark objects on light backgrounds

How many times am I going to have to say that it is NOT a duplication of a dark shadow on a bright background, but a duplication of the bright background on a dark shadow (or sometimes the bright horizon on the dark sky), and therefore entirely in keeping with the other duplications being taled about? I have now explained this to you three times.

Note only is Combat Wombat ignoring Jason's three explanations, but he still doesn't seem to have understood my description of what he was actually seeing back in post No 7.

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....

...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."

The sign about the dark leaking out of the darkroom was actually a joke, but I doubt that CW noticed.

So Combat Wombat, if you are going to carry on talking about "doubled shadows" when they don't actually exist, please explain to us how it is possible to project darkness into light. Many of us would have projected light into darkness hundreds of times, but I have never heard of anyone projecting darkness into light. Except when printing negatives, but even then we are actually projecting light into darkness, not the other way around. We can only ever shade light to make a shadow, we cannot project darkness.

They are taken from the surface, through the double-paned docking window from within the LM. Unless they climbed in then out again took, half a dozen shots then re-entered the LM.

Does that last comment mean you have not studied the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/
to find out the exact activities of the astronauts around the time the photos were taken? Have you checked the captions for the photos in the Apollo 14 Image Library at the ALSJ to see if there is already an explanation of the features we are trying and failing to explain to you because you won't pay attention to what we tell you?
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: JayUtah on January 23, 2020, 09:50:30 AM
I know this happens and it's very weak as your photo demonstrates, doesn’t come close to the dramatic effect we see in A14 and A12.

The visible degree of effect varies with circumstances.

Quote
Dark objects on light backgrounds...

That's not what you're observing, as has been made very plain to you.

Quote
...can you duplicate that on Earth using natural sunlight or a single artificial light at night?

Will you apply the same test conditions to your proposed cause?  Can you duplicate everything you see using two separate light sources?  You're ignoring the ways your explanation doesn't account for the facts while at the same time purporting such accountability to be a fatal standard of evidence for explanations you don't like.

Quote
Flown dozens of times, sat in the cockpits and seats of vintage aircraft with double-paned windows. Nothing.

But those aren't the same conditions as in your photographs, are they?
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: gillianren on January 23, 2020, 11:05:18 AM
Literally every time there's a full Moon that I can see from my bedroom window (so not these days; we're supposed to get a half-inch of rain again today), it is clearly and distinctly doubled.  It's a known phenomenon, and I'm not sure why it's causing such difficulty to understand.
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: Zakalwe on January 23, 2020, 12:52:10 PM
Bright objects on dark backgrounds

Ever looked at a full/nearly full Moon on a clear night through double-glazed windows? If not, then try it and get back to us.

https://twitter.com/MentalJargon/status/1090869388264292353

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DyOL7DTX0AAQkyI?format=jpg&name=small)

Is it your contention that this random image off Twitter is also faked or shot in a studio somewhere?

I know this happens and it's very weak as your photo demonstrates, doesn’t come close to the dramatic effect we see in A14 and A12.

Good. So you acknowledge that imaging through a unit made of multiple panes of glass can cause double imaging, without the need to more than one light source.
Whats your point again???
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: JayUtah on January 23, 2020, 04:01:27 PM
Why, if these 'double shadows' are caused by multiple light sources, are they parallel? Shadows caused by multiple light sources diverge and at angle equal to the angle between the light sources at the vertex (source) of the shadow.

Yes, this is a rather important question.  "Two apparent shadows means two light sources" is not enough when we know rigorously the geometry that would have to exist between those shadow volumes.  If the observed light-and-dark patches purported to be overlapping shadows don't exhibit the right geometrical properties for such a scenario, that is data that argues against that hypothesis.  We'd have to look at other hypotheses and obtain data to test them.

One that's improbable in this scenario but which comes up frequently in other forms of photographic interpretation is coloration of the surface.  I can shoot a photograph of a flat wall on which is painted a representation of some scene or object.  If care is taken to color the wall so as to resemble shade and shadow, the illusion of depth is produced.  This is, in fact, how a great deal of scenery art is accomplished in film and theatre.  We always keep this on the table because such trompe l'oeil circumstances arise accidentally often enough in nature.  The coloration of unfamiliar or previously unknown objects gives us bad spatial cues.  Not likely to be the case here because we can deduce the absence of any rampant, hard-edged coloration variance on the lunar surface, and because of the complexity of the contour in the feature.

And of course there's the interreflection hypothesis.  It answers the contour question as well as aligning with when we know the astronauts photographed through double-paned glass versus when they didn't.  It's a very parsimonious explanation.  "But it doesn't occur all the time," is not much of a response.  Yes, we can show through demonstration that it doesn't occur all the time.  And with a little systematic experimentation we can enumerate some general factors that affect whether we see it any particular case or not.  That rarely lets us declare whether it should be visible or not in any imagined case.  But it convinces us that its comings and goings are governed by conditions, not by the whim of the observer.

That it wasn't duplicated exactly in some particular test setup is not worrisome.  As we've noted, there are many factors involved.  Even in the most charitable cases, we don't afford much to a claimant's failure to demonstrate or reproduce a hypothesis that competes with his own.  It's a conflict of interest, even if there's no nefarious intent.  But the claimant's inability or unwillingness to apply empirical tests to his own hypothesis speaks louder.  You win your case by showing empirically that your hypothesis works, not by a show of failure to empirically verify your critics' counterproposal.
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 23, 2020, 06:28:42 PM
Another thing that messes up the 'double lit' idea: you don't see a true 'double shadow'. If it was a double shadow then it would show a symmetry, two shadows the same size and shape (more or less) overlapping, with fainter shadows on both sides and a darker one in the middle where they overlap. Instead we mostly see a doubling only along one side. Where is the corresponding doubling on the other side?

This is why I lean towards the 'overlaid ghost image of the bright background' explanation. One the side of the shadow where the ghost image overlaps it, the slight increase in the amount of light striking the film makes a noticeable difference in the reaction of the emulsion pigments, hence we see a region of shadow that is not as dark as the rest. But on the other side, the ghost image is totally overhwhelmed by the bright background and the difference in the reaction of the film emulsion is not detectable. This is also why you don't see double crater shadows. The bright surface totally overwhelms any slight difference caused by the overlaid ghost image. This also explains why the horizon is only doubled when the ghost image is 'above' it. The difference between the brightness of the background and the backgrund plus ghost image isn't detectable.
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: smartcooky on January 23, 2020, 07:39:33 PM
CW

How about you stop trying to dodge the hard questions.

You can start by answering Jason's two questions...

Why, if these 'double shadows' are caused by multiple light sources, are they only apparent when photographed through a window? This double effect should be seen in plenty of other images as well from the lunar surface if it is caused by something outside the scene and not the window.

Why, if trying to fake a scene lit by one source, would they even have used multiple lights in the first place?

And you can continue by answering mine...

Why, if these 'double shadows' are caused by multiple light sources, are they parallel? Shadows caused by multiple light sources diverge and at angle equal to the angle between the light sources at the vertex (source) of the shadow.

(https://media.tenor.com/images/52459456b4aa83ecb305b09e2e99c47a/tenor.gif)

Well Combat Wombat? How about some answers?
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: smartcooky on January 23, 2020, 09:05:49 PM
Another thing that messes up the 'double lit' idea: you don't see a true 'double shadow'. If it was a double shadow then it would show a symmetry, two shadows the same size and shape (more or less) overlapping, with fainter shadows on both sides and a darker one in the middle where they overlap. Instead we mostly see a doubling only along one side. Where is the corresponding doubling on the other side?

As I pointed out earlier, the shadows would diverge - closer together nearer the vertex, further apart further from it.


(https://maverick.inria.fr/Research/RealTimeShadows/Small/Hugo-4Sources.jpg)
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: Von_Smith on January 24, 2020, 12:06:51 AM
Another thing that messes up the 'double lit' idea: you don't see a true 'double shadow'. If it was a double shadow then it would show a symmetry, two shadows the same size and shape (more or less) overlapping, with fainter shadows on both sides and a darker one in the middle where they overlap. Instead we mostly see a doubling only along one side. Where is the corresponding doubling on the other side?

As I pointed out earlier, the shadows would diverge - closer together nearer the vertex, further apart further from it.


(https://maverick.inria.fr/Research/RealTimeShadows/Small/Hugo-4Sources.jpg)

I can't take a good picture of it right now, but I can *kind* of get the effect we see in CW's photos from a single light source with two distinct but closely-placed elements, like the overhead light in my living room.  The tv is casting a shadow against the wall behind me that looks vaguely similar.

However, getting the edges of the primary and secondary shadow to run exactly parallel with no elongation or offset is almost impossible.
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: smartcooky on January 24, 2020, 05:43:33 AM
Another thing that messes up the 'double lit' idea: you don't see a true 'double shadow'. If it was a double shadow then it would show a symmetry, two shadows the same size and shape (more or less) overlapping, with fainter shadows on both sides and a darker one in the middle where they overlap. Instead we mostly see a doubling only along one side. Where is the corresponding doubling on the other side?

As I pointed out earlier, the shadows would diverge - closer together nearer the vertex, further apart further from it.


(https://maverick.inria.fr/Research/RealTimeShadows/Small/Hugo-4Sources.jpg)

I can't take a good picture of it right now, but I can *kind* of get the effect we see in CW's photos from a single light source with two distinct but closely-placed elements, like the overhead light in my living room.  The tv is casting a shadow against the wall behind me that looks vaguely similar.

However, getting the edges of the primary and secondary shadow to run exactly parallel with no elongation or offset is almost impossible.

This thing here is that its not projection onto a wall we're talking about a wall is it? Its projecting on the ground, and if the cause of the LM double shadow effect was a double light source, any shadows cast by the LM will diverge.

Here is a simple experiment I just did to show how it works. I used a white remote control and stood it on its end on the kitchen benchtop

(https://www.dropbox.com/s/8e5k2llbqd42e5b/single-double-shadows.jpg?raw=1)

On the left, its illuminated with a single LED torch. On the right, two LED torches about the same distance apart as the width of the remote. See how the double shadows diverge the further they are from the remote?

Lets go back to CW's original post

Quote
"....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

He has really posted all the information he needs to answer his question before he even asks it!!!

Clue 1: "Only seems to happen when in the LM cabin"
Well gee whizz, I wonder why that might be? Could it be that only those images are being shot through double-pane thick glass?

Clue 2: "affects the LM shadows and nothing else in the picture"
Hmm, really, or is it just more obvious with the LM shadows give they are larger and have greater contrast?

Clue 3: "They seem extremely mobile too, moving between shots"
Perhaps, in the same way that the camera position and angle will change between shots?
 
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: Von_Smith on January 24, 2020, 09:46:56 AM
Another thing that messes up the 'double lit' idea: you don't see a true 'double shadow'. If it was a double shadow then it would show a symmetry, two shadows the same size and shape (more or less) overlapping, with fainter shadows on both sides and a darker one in the middle where they overlap. Instead we mostly see a doubling only along one side. Where is the corresponding doubling on the other side?

As I pointed out earlier, the shadows would diverge - closer together nearer the vertex, further apart further from it.


(https://maverick.inria.fr/Research/RealTimeShadows/Small/Hugo-4Sources.jpg)

I can't take a good picture of it right now, but I can *kind* of get the effect we see in CW's photos from a single light source with two distinct but closely-placed elements, like the overhead light in my living room.  The tv is casting a shadow against the wall behind me that looks vaguely similar.

However, getting the edges of the primary and secondary shadow to run exactly parallel with no elongation or offset is almost impossible.

This thing here is that its not projection onto a wall we're talking about a wall is it? Its projecting on the ground, and if the cause of the LM double shadow effect was a double light source, any shadows cast by the LM will diverge.

Here is a simple experiment I just did to show how it works. I used a white remote control and stood it on its end on the kitchen benchtop

(https://www.dropbox.com/s/8e5k2llbqd42e5b/single-double-shadows.jpg?raw=1)

On the left, its illuminated with a single LED torch. On the right, two LED torches about the same distance apart as the width of the remote. See how the double shadows diverge the further they are from the remote?

Wasn't disputing with you, just happened to make an observation.  The thing is, if I do the experiment with an object, like you did, where I can easily see both relevant edges of the shadow, then I can see the pattern you're talking about, especially when there's a significant horizontal angle to the light direction, and the shadow in question is elongate along that axis (as it is in both your example, and in the case of the LM's shadows).

Thanks for that. 
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: Abaddon on January 24, 2020, 10:02:08 AM

Clue 1: "Only seems to happen when in the LM cabin"
Well gee whizz, I wonder why that might be? Could it be that only those images are being shot through double-pane thick glass?
Yup. I cannot fathom why this makes no impression on him.

Clue 2: "affects the LM shadows and nothing else in the picture"
Hmm, really, or is it just more obvious with the LM shadows give they are larger and have greater contrast?
That would be simply because he does not understand the equipment used. My eldest is quite fascinated about the difference between modern digital and traditional film. I have donated an aged Fujica 35mm with a range of lenses to that cause. And it is becoming difficult to find somewhere to have those developed. Nevertheless, he is coming to understand the difference between such media. Something our protagonist cannot figure out.

Clue 3: "They seem extremely mobile too, moving between shots"
Perhaps, in the same way that the camera position and angle will change between shots?
Handheld on the surface of the moon? You bet your sweet bippy angles change. But no, somehow, the astronauts should have been professional level tripods because that is what it takes to maintain the delusion of a hoax.

I took my kid on a street photography course a couple of years ago. There was one rule. Viewfinders were forbidden. It was the best of fun and we all got great shots. Impossible, according to hoax believers, of course. 
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: Combat Wombat on January 29, 2020, 11:40:16 PM

Quote
Why, if trying to fake a scene lit by one source, would they even have used multiple lights in the first place?

To provide more light, depending on how much area is to be illuminated.

Quote
Why, if these 'double shadows' are caused by multiple light sources, are they only apparent when photographed through a window? This double effect should be seen in plenty of other images as well from the lunar surface if it is caused by something outside the scene and not the window.

Perhaps they used a floodlight for broad illumination and a spotlight to add some density to the LM shadow. You can get a single shadow effect this way however some finer details are lost, the edges are fuzzier and thin spindly objects are somewhat attenuated. Shadows of shorter and less detailed objects like rocks and astronauts simply become fuzzier. Without the extra lighting you might get a result like this, a spotlight effect to the left of the camera
. I grew up in an area abundant in sand flats, dunes and beaches. I took standard 8 movies and 35mm silver halide stills around these areas. Never had any effect like this and can't find any Earthly examples except for the oppositional effect that results from when the sun is directly behind the photographer.

Quote
And you can continue by answering mine...

Why, if these 'double shadows' are caused by multiple light sources, are they parallel? Shadows caused by multiple light sources diverge and at angle equal to the angle between the light sources at the vertex (source) of the shadow.

If an object is lit by two closely aligned lights then the shadows will remain almost consistent with some slight deviation. Depends on the adjustment of lights and the distance of the lights from the object. If you illuminate a tall object with 2 lights aligned one above the other you'll get little deviation across the horizontal but more on the vertical. Vice versa for 2 lights aligned side by side

When the bush fire season ends in April I'll try to set up some experiments, might have to wait a little longer, just got word, the Corona Virus is in town, they've locked down an international school, just what the doctor ordered!

Maybe I won't have to, looks like others are beginning to pay attention to these curious photos in the archive. Not before time. Thanks

Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: Combat Wombat on January 30, 2020, 12:27:59 AM
Quote
How many times am I going to have to say that it is NOT a duplication of a dark shadow on a bright background, but a duplication of the bright background on a dark shadow (or sometimes the bright horizon on the dark sky), and therefore entirely in keeping with the other duplications being taled about? I have now explained this to you three times.

When a bright area, which is essentially light, impinges on a shadow, an area absent light it tends to weaken and dissipate the shadow. It removes fine details but in this case much detail is preserved and duplicated https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157659051610141/with/21657461446/. Can you please provide earthly examples? No fuzzy shadows on grass cast from aircraft at low altitude, I work under choppers regularly and I'm very familiar with the shadows they cast at various altitudes. I want results consistent with the Apollo images, should be be easy.

Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: JayUtah on January 30, 2020, 12:45:09 AM
To provide more light, depending on how much area is to be illuminated.

There are better ways to do that.  Especially by people trying to imitate sunlight for purposes of fakery.  Your appeals to aesthetics require the hypothetical fakers to put that over accuracy.  In essence, your theory requires smart people to be dumb.

Quote
If an object is lit by two closely aligned lights then the shadows will remain almost consistent with some slight deviation.

Your photos don't show slight deviation.  They show considerable deviation, which necessitates a transverse separation of the light sources.  You can't have one effect -- the one you observe -- without also having the other effect -- the one that's not in your pictures.

Quote
Maybe I won't have to, looks like others are beginning to pay attention to these curious photos in the archive. Not before time. Thanks

Yes, amateur wannabe photo analysts have been poring over the photos for decades pretending they can see something everyone else in the world seems to have missed.  Do your experiments and show actual empirical evidence for your claims.
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: JayUtah on January 30, 2020, 12:49:08 AM
I want results consistent with the Apollo images, should be be easy.

No.  You're asking for "earthly" examples that correspond to a unique planetary lighting condition that cannot occur on Earth.  The Apollo images are the result of many factors, all of which have been individually demonstrated to you by empirical evidence.  It's up to you to put them together in your mind.  In contrast, you're pushing a theory which not only fails to explain all the observations in the photo, but for which also you have assiduously avoided supplying empirical proof.  You have the burden to prove your claim that two separated light sources can produce "results consistent with the Apollo images."  You haven't done it, and I suspect you never will.
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: JayUtah on January 30, 2020, 12:58:40 AM
I grew up in an area abundant in sand flats, dunes and beaches. I took standard 8 movies and 35mm silver halide stills around these areas. Never had any effect like this...

I live in a desert and I have.  But it's less pronounced because the scattered atmospheric light very much attenuates the effect.

Quote
and can't find any Earthly examples except for the oppositional effect that results from when the sun is directly behind the photographer.

So yes, the effect exists.  Retroreflection is inversely proportional to the phase angle.  It's just not as easy to see in "earthly" examples, and now you've been told why.  The near-angle nonlinear albedo amplification of the lunar surface is documented and observable from Earth.  It's a fact of astronomy that's been around for literally centuries.  Your ignorance of it doesn't make it go away, or necessitate an otherwise pointless spotlight.

By the way, I have at times made my living as a photographer and photographic interpreter.  My photo analysis work has appeared in prestigious scientific journals.  I also occasionally assist in the lighting design and implementation at an $80 million performing arts facility.  Do not bluff here.  You will be called on it every time.
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: Combat Wombat on January 30, 2020, 01:18:52 AM

Quote
If by dark objects you mean shadows, sure. 

https://d2v9y0dukr6mq2.cloudfront.net/video/thumbnail/kG-5Wkc/videoblocks-airplane-flying-shadow-touching-down-at-airport-runway_b3rj79qk_thumbnail-full07.png

Check out the edges of the airplane's shadow, especially the front edge of the top wing.

Hardly a comparison! This aircraft is how high? Of course it's shadow is fuzzy and indistinct! It's high, on Earth and it's cast onto a grassy surface. I work under heavy lift choppers, I see their shadows from 20 to 150 meters as they hover, they look much the same as this one. It's not inter-reflection.

Duplicate to this level: https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157659051610141/with/21683522405/ on a car parking lot or sand flat using a single light source, natural or artificial
 and using https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/apolloSpacecraftWindows.pdf if possible but two ordinary parallel panes of glass will do. Will cut you some slack for natural light and not being on the Lunar surface.

I've attempted it, so far, 2 lights work, easily, 2 panes do nothing. I intend to upgrade when time permits but it looks like someone will get there before me! Cheers!

Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: Combat Wombat on January 30, 2020, 01:44:40 AM
I want results consistent with the Apollo images, should be be easy.

No.  You're asking for "earthly" examples that correspond to a unique planetary lighting condition that cannot occur on Earth.  The Apollo images are the result of many factors, all of which have been individually demonstrated to you by empirical evidence.  It's up to you to put them together in your mind.  In contrast, you're pushing a theory which not only fails to explain all the observations in the photo, but for which also you have assiduously avoided supplying empirical proof.  You have the burden to prove your claim that two separated light sources can produce "results consistent with the Apollo images."  You haven't done it, and I suspect you never will.

If anything, the archive images should amply demonstrate the intensity of that 'unique planetary lighting conditions' (the Sun with 8% albedo and minus atmospheric diffusion) plus the trials and tribulations that the astronauts endured (but have yet to repeat 5 decades later!) you speak of. You should be able to repeat this at night using a single bright light and 2 parallel panes of glass with a noticeable effect. If it can be repeated using this method without secondary lighting then the question is open. If it can't, it's possibly fake. I'm working on, looks like others are too, never hurts to ask, glad I did! Thanks
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: JayUtah on January 30, 2020, 01:45:24 AM
...they look much the same as this one. It's not inter-reflection.

Why should you expect it to be interreflection?  Do you even listen to yourself?

Quote
Duplicate to this level: ... on a car parking lot or sand flat

No.  You're demanding a standard of proof that is incompatible with with constraints you impose.  You want the level of effect that can only arise on the Moon -- for the reasons already given -- using constraints imposed by the Earth environment.  Reversing the burden of proof and then trying to add weight to it just emphasizes that you know you don't really have an argument.

Quote
Will cut you some slack for natural light and not being on the Lunar surface.

No.  It has been explained to you why certain effects will be more pronounced when exhibited on the lunar surface.  Your demand that they be duplicated to the same degree in a different environment is inappropriate.  You are the claimant making an extraordinary claim.  You get no slack.

Quote
I've attempted it...

Show me.  Quit stalling and show me.  If you have time to research and type out these posts, you have time to provide the evidence that proves your claim.

Quote
...but it looks like someone will get there before me! Cheers!

That does not excuse you from carrying your burden of proof.  So far all you have given us is a bunch of ill-conceived speculation.
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: JayUtah on January 30, 2020, 01:55:35 AM
...the Sun with 8% albedo and minus atmospheric diffusion...

No.  The geometrical albedo of the Moon varies greatly with phase angle and other factors.  Address this.  It is specifically relevant to the photo you just posted and the hypothesis you offered to explain it.

Quote
You should be able to repeat this at night using a single bright light and 2 parallel panes of glass...

No.  Your declaration that such a test would be possible and uniquely probative is simply an ipse dixit argument.  You've been shown the constituent elements of the interreflection hypothesis, an explanation of the physics involved, and empirical proof of their individual validity.  Your demand for an end-to-end demonstrate ignores all of that.

Quote
If it can be repeated using this method without secondary lighting then the question is open.

You're not proposing an open question.  You're proposing a specific claim which you refuse to prove or reconcile with existing observations.  Instead you're trying to reverse the burden of proof.  It's also immensely hubristic of you to dictate exactly what procedure your critics must use to attempt to rebut you.

Quote
If it can't, it's possibly fake.

No.  Your inability to understand what is happening in photographs is not proof of fakery.  Nor is your critics' unwillingness to act out the scene you've scripted for them.

Quote
I'm working on, looks like others are too, never hurts to ask, glad I did! Thanks

As I said, a generation of wannabe photo analysts have been making these claims for decades, with no more credibility than you.
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 30, 2020, 03:21:08 AM

When a bright area, which is essentially light, impinges on a shadow, an area absent light it tends to weaken and dissipate the shadow. It removes fine details but in this case much detail is preserved and duplicated https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157659051610141/with/21657461446/. Can you please provide earthly examples? No fuzzy shadows on grass cast from aircraft at low altitude, I work under choppers regularly and I'm very familiar with the shadows they cast at various altitudes. I want results consistent with the Apollo images, should be be easy.

I’ll say this again in the hope it penetrates. This is NOT an actual effect on the shadow itself. It is an optical effect of a ghost image superimposed over the primary image caused by the picture being taken through a double-pained window. The shadow itself is not affected. Outside the LM it is a single solid, well-defined shadow.

Once again, this is purely caused by taking the picture through a window. A well-known effect that also causes the duplication of the horizon in some cases.
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: Kiwi on January 30, 2020, 07:22:08 AM
Duplicate to this level: https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157659051610141/with/21683522405/ on a car parking lot or sand flat using a single light source, natural or artificial
 and using https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/apolloSpacecraftWindows.pdf if possible but two ordinary parallel panes of glass will do. Will cut you some slack for natural light and not being on the Lunar surface.

I've attempted it, so far, 2 lights work, easily, 2 panes do nothing.

Combat Wombat: The long-term photographer in me (it's now 52) can't help asking:--

1. Why would two panes of ordinary glass work?

And shouldn't they be (as illustrated and described in your link, pages 9 and 10):--
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/apolloSpacecraftWindows.pdf

2. Of different thicknesses which are the same as the actual panes?
3. The thinner pane made of annealed glass and equally resistant to hurtling lunar micrometeoroids as the real thing?
4. The thicker pane made of chemically tempered glass?
5. Both separated by the same large distance, about 2.5 times the thickness of both panes?
6. Have BR (blue-red) coatings?
7. Have HEA (high-efficiency antireflection) coatings?
8. Have ECC (electrical conductive coatings) that are deliberately applied unevenly to thicknesses of 400 to 700 angstroms?
9. Have the same 82% light transmission as the original two?
10. Have the same 5% reflectivity?

And when doing the experiment:--

11. Shouldn't the sun be at the same elevation as in the lunar photos?
12. Shouldn't the glass panes be angled to the sun in exactly same degrees (both left-right and up-down) as in the lunar photos?
13. Shouldn't the camera be angled to the sun in exactly the same degrees as in the lunar photos?
14. Shouldn't the surface that the shadow and sun fall on be of the same reflectivity as lunar regolith, with all its little pieces of glass?

And finally:

We have over and over tried to convey a simple truth to you: That the shadows aren't doubled. A single shadow has had sunlit ground reflected onto it by the LM's windows, and possibly between the panes. Outside the LM, that single shadow is unaffected. So:--

15. Have we explained it often enough yet?
16. Have you finally got it?
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: Von_Smith on January 30, 2020, 08:21:17 AM

Quote
If by dark objects you mean shadows, sure. 

https://d2v9y0dukr6mq2.cloudfront.net/video/thumbnail/kG-5Wkc/videoblocks-airplane-flying-shadow-touching-down-at-airport-runway_b3rj79qk_thumbnail-full07.png

Check out the edges of the airplane's shadow, especially the front edge of the top wing.

Hardly a comparison! This aircraft is how high? Of course it's shadow is fuzzy and indistinct! It's high, on Earth and it's cast onto a grassy surface. I work under heavy lift choppers, I see their shadows from 20 to 150 meters as they hover, they look much the same as this one. It's not inter-reflection.

Duplicate to this level: https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157659051610141/with/21683522405/ on a car parking lot or sand flat using a single light source, natural or artificial
 and using https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/apolloSpacecraftWindows.pdf if possible but two ordinary parallel panes of glass will do. Will cut you some slack for natural light and not being on the Lunar surface.

I've attempted it, so far, 2 lights work, easily, 2 panes do nothing. I intend to upgrade when time permits but it looks like someone will get there before me! Cheers!

In space, no one can hear you shift the goalposts.

eta:  Snark aside, here's a question for you:  Can *you* "duplicate to this level" the effect using the method you claim created it?  Can your hypothesis pass a test that you claim ours fails?  The closest I could come was with two light sources arranged vertically at just the right distance to the object.  And even that wasn't "to this level".
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 30, 2020, 12:22:46 PM

When a bright area, which is essentially light, impinges on a shadow, an area absent light it tends to weaken and dissipate the shadow. It removes fine details but in this case much detail is preserved and duplicated https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157659051610141/with/21657461446/.

You keep linking to this album, and it actually contains a few good examples of why you are simply wrong about the 'double-lit' suggestion. The biggest giveaway is that the 'double shadow' of the LM in each of the images it appears in is different. The angle and extent of the double boundary, and even which side it appears on, changes in each image. Not one of them shows the same double shadow. Now by any hypothesis that multiple light sources are being used and that this is a genuine doubling of the actual shadow, that requires the relative positions of the LM and the individual light sources to be changed between photographs. That hypothesis therefore fails due to the absurdity of doing such a thing. On the other hand if, as we have been telling you, it is purely an effect of the LM windows, then this difference in the shadows between images is expected as a result of changes in the position and angle of the camera relative to the window. That the camera angle is changing is clear since the different images are clearly taken from different positions and angles.

Now, which of those is more ikely to be the case?
Title: Re: Double LM Shadows.
Post by: onebigmonkey on January 30, 2020, 08:15:11 PM

I mis-read your post at first, but I want to point out that there *are* double images of the earth taken from the surface on the AS14-66 roll.  It's not just shadows of the LM.

They are taken from the surface, through the double-paned docking window from within the LM. Unless they climbed in then out again took, half a dozen shots then re-entered the LM.

Look at the sequence of shots.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656723857913/page2

You DO know that the Hasselblad cameras used had the ability to take a film magazine off of the camera, replace it with another, shoot some pictures, and then switch back to the first magazine again?

Indeed they did change magazines, but this was taken from inside the LM post EVA 2 using the surface camera. https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/images14.html#Mag66

Quote
AS14-66-9327 (OF300) ( 67k or 1100k )
This photo of the Earth was taken through the rendezvous window over Al's station. It may have been taken after EVA-2. A reason for suspecting this is that Al took some pictures of Earth from the bottom of the ladder at 135:03:42 and may have decided to try some similar shots thru the rendezvous window.

You'll no doubt observe that the Earth is fully duplicated in some shots but the rivets don't appear to share the same effect, even though they're bright objects on a dark background, seems to affect only the Earth and what a wonky crescent Earth it is! Zoom in! Changes from shot to shot!

And those post-EVA2 images of Earth also contain Venus, exactly where it should be. Got an explanation for that?