Author Topic: Double LM Shadows.  (Read 8689 times)

Offline Allan F

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 925
Re: Double LM Shadows.
« Reply #45 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.
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 Allan F

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 925
Re: Double LM Shadows.
« Reply #46 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?
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 Von_Smith

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 78
Re: Double LM Shadows.
« Reply #47 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?

Offline Combat Wombat

  • Mercury
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: Double LM Shadows.
« Reply #48 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



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.

Offline Combat Wombat

  • Mercury
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: Double LM Shadows.
« Reply #49 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!

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1575
Re: Double LM Shadows.
« Reply #50 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.
"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 smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1806
Re: Double LM Shadows.
« Reply #51 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.
► 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 Von_Smith

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 78
Re: Double LM Shadows.
« Reply #52 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



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.

Offline Kiwi

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 446
Re: Double LM Shadows.
« Reply #53 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?
« Last Edit: January 23, 2020, 08:10:13 AM by Kiwi »
Don't criticize what you can't understand. — Bob Dylan, “The Times They Are A-Changin'” (1963)
Some people think they are thinking when they are really rearranging their prejudices and superstitions. — Edward R. Murrow (1908–65)

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3490
    • Clavius
Re: Double LM Shadows.
« Reply #54 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?
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2043
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Double LM Shadows.
« Reply #55 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.
"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 Zakalwe

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1443
Re: Double LM Shadows.
« Reply #56 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



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???
"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' " - Isaac Asimov

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3490
    • Clavius
Re: Double LM Shadows.
« Reply #57 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.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1575
Re: Double LM Shadows.
« Reply #58 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.
"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 smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1806
Re: Double LM Shadows.
« Reply #59 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.



Well Combat Wombat? How about some answers?
► 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