#### smartcooky

• Uranus
• Posts: 1806
« Reply #60 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.

► 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

#### Von_Smith

• Venus
• Posts: 78
« Reply #61 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.

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.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2020, 12:10:12 AM by Von_Smith »

#### smartcooky

• Uranus
• Posts: 1806
« Reply #62 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.

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

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?

► 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

#### Von_Smith

• Venus
• Posts: 78
« Reply #63 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.

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

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.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2020, 09:51:00 AM by Von_Smith »

• Saturn
• Posts: 1128
« Reply #64 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.

#### Combat Wombat

• Mercury
• Posts: 13
« Reply #65 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

#### Combat Wombat

• Mercury
• Posts: 13
« Reply #66 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.

#### JayUtah

• Neptune
• Posts: 3490
« Reply #67 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.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

#### JayUtah

• Neptune
• Posts: 3490
« Reply #68 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.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

#### JayUtah

• Neptune
• Posts: 3490
« Reply #69 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.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

#### Combat Wombat

• Mercury
• Posts: 13
« Reply #70 on: January 30, 2020, 01:18:52 AM »

Quote
If by dark objects you mean shadows, sure.

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!

#### Combat Wombat

• Mercury
• Posts: 13
« Reply #71 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

#### JayUtah

• Neptune
• Posts: 3490
« Reply #72 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.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

#### JayUtah

• Neptune
• Posts: 3490
« Reply #73 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.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2020, 02:00:09 AM by JayUtah »
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

• Uranus
• Posts: 1575