Author Topic: Double LM Shadows.  (Read 3595 times)

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1528
Re: Double LM Shadows.
« Reply #15 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...
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1890
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Double LM Shadows.
« Reply #16 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.
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3230
    • Clavius
Re: Double LM Shadows.
« Reply #17 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.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline ApolloEnthusiast

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 36
Re: Double LM Shadows.
« Reply #18 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. 




Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1890
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Double LM Shadows.
« Reply #19 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.
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline Combat Wombat

  • Mercury
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: Double LM Shadows.
« Reply #20 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.






Offline Abaddon

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1116
Re: Double LM Shadows.
« Reply #21 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.

Offline Allan F

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 906
Re: Double LM Shadows.
« Reply #22 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?
Well, it is like this: The truth doesn't need insults. Insults are the refuge of a darkened mind, a mind that refuses to open and see. Foul language can't outcompete knowledge. And knowledge is the result of education. Education is the result of the wish to know more, not less.

Offline smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1739
Re: Double LM Shadows.
« Reply #23 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
► What you can assert without evidence, I can dismiss without evidence
► When you argue with idiots you risk being dragged down to their level and beaten with experience.
► Conspiracism is a shortcut to the illusion of erudition

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1528
Re: Double LM Shadows.
« Reply #24 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.
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3230
    • Clavius
Re: Double LM Shadows.
« Reply #25 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.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1890
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Double LM Shadows.
« Reply #26 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!"
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3230
    • Clavius
Re: Double LM Shadows.
« Reply #27 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.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline AtomicDog

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 365
Re: Double LM Shadows.
« Reply #28 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.
"There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death." - Isaac Asimov

Offline smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1739
Re: Double LM Shadows.
« Reply #29 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.
► What you can assert without evidence, I can dismiss without evidence
► When you argue with idiots you risk being dragged down to their level and beaten with experience.
► Conspiracism is a shortcut to the illusion of erudition