Non-parallel shadows

[Bob B.]

In the last few days I've had two GLP woo-woos reference the following Apollo 17 image (most recently in this thread):



Anyone who has followed the moon hoax thing has probably seen it. The HB story goes, the shadows must be parallel thus these could only be produced using multiple light sources. Of course the reason the astronauts' shadows appear as they do is because of the slope of the ground. In response to a challenge to demonstrate this, I took the following photo using astronaut miniatures and a single spotlight:



Oh yeah, in case you were wondering, multiple light sources would produce multiple shadows. The HBs never seem able to explain this.

[Lance]

Oh yeah, in case you were wondering, multiple light sources would produce multiple shadows. The HBs never seem able to explain this.

Nah... You used two small spot lights fairly close up and had a flat black card between them held in that dark area in the upper right.

If there was only one light the shadows would be parallel. Everyone knows that.

Silly Bob B.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Proof the moon landings were faked! OMG! :P

[Bob B.]

Proof the moon landings were faked! OMG! :P

You can never win an argument with an HB...

HB: These shadows can only be produced by multiple light sources.

Illuminati: No, the ground slope causes the shadows to appear that way.

HB: Oh yeah, prove it.

Illuminati: Okay, here is a modeled recreation using only a single light.

HB: Ah-ha! So THAT'S how the photos were faked.

[hazzard]

Nice one Bob. :)


Is there anyone here who have talked to an EX moon HOAX beliver,AND WHAT CHANGED THEIR MIND.?

[Lance]

Didn't the guy who originally ran ApolloHoax.com change his mind?

[twinstead]

Didn't the guy who originally ran ApolloHoax.com change his mind?

Yea, I remember some discussion about that, was before my time. He even came back on the board every once in a while.

I don't remember his nick though

[Bob B.]

Didn't the guy who originally ran ApolloHoax.com change his mind?

Yeah, that's the story I hear, though it was before my time. He ended up turning Apollohoax over the John Witts. I'm pretty sure John is one of the guys who helped turn him around.

Is there anyone here who have talked to an EX moon HOAX beliver,AND WHAT CHANGED THEIR MIND.?

Personally, I've never converted a hardcore HB, though I have helped to enlightened several people who just got all screwed up and confused by this hoax nonsense. I think you'll agree there's a big difference between those who are just confused and the real nut cases.

I've worked with a couple of folks who were initially adamant the landings were faked and was able to get them to at least acknowledge the possibility they were real. As far as what changed their minds, I'd say it wasn't any one thing. It was just patience and showing the shear stupidity of the hoax claims, but in a nice way.

[hazzard]

I remember after that "Stanly Kubric thing" on tv about the moonhoax,my mother! ! asked me if I heard that the moonlandings were fake.

I just told her -PLEASE MAM!

Simple as that. :)

[conspiracy cam]

At the begining of my search it was looking lik they had faked it all to me. Then i found several helpful websites, has you can see from my website in the sig.

[gillianren]

I've a friend who'd been, let's say, ambivalent on the subject. (I didn't know this initially; it'd never come up.) just before the last time I saw her, I finally got to see the National Geographic thingy w/JayUtah on it. Jay, Gods love 'im, convinced her.

[twinstead]

I've a friend who'd been, let's say, ambivalent on the subject. (I didn't know this initially; it'd never come up.) just before the last time I saw her, I finally got to see the National Geographic thingy w/JayUtah on it. Jay, Gods love 'im, convinced her.

Jay has a habit of doing that, at least to rational people.

[Frogmarch]

Just a small point Bob.

light cast by a lamp at that range will cast non-parallel shadows anyway even on a flat surface.

I recommend that you take another picture but use the Sun's light to cast the shadows. This light has traveled 93million miles and, to all intense and purposes, is traveling parallel to light a meter away and will cast parallel shadows on a flat surface.

[Bob B.]

Just a small point Bob.

light cast by a lamp at that range will cast non-parallel shadows anyway even on a flat surface.

I recommend that you take another picture but use the Sun's light to cast the shadows. This light has traveled 93million miles and, to all intense and purposes, is traveling parallel to light a meter away and will cast parallel shadows on a flat surface.

I'm already ahead of you. I took this picture four days ago:



The shadows in my original photo appear as they do because of the slope of the surface -- the divergence caused by the proximity of the light source was fairly small in this case. Furthermore, the claim I was refuting was, quoted directly from GLP, "this effect can not be duplicated without multiple light sources". Since I used only one light source, the HB claim was debunked.

[dr1819]

Oh yeah, in case you were wondering, multiple light sources would produce multiple shadows. The HBs never seem able to explain this.

Nah... You used two small spot lights fairly close up and had a flat black card between them held in that dark area in the upper right.

If there was only one light the shadows would be parallel. Everyone knows that.

Silly Bob B.

But then the textured surface would no longer be equally lighted...

[Lance]

But then the textured surface would no longer be equally lighted...

Uh, let's see.... It's hard coming up with woo woo arguments...

Okay, there was a third "fill" light overhead to ballance out the lighting of the textured surface. That also explains the bit of light in the shadows.

So there...

[MM_Dandy]

Nope. All the surfaces were covered with a luminescent substance.

[Lance]

Nope. All the surfaces were covered with a luminescent substance.

MUCH BETTER!

[ktesibios]

NO NO NO NO!

It's a manifestation of the luminiferous aether!

Ye gods, can't you see that?

[MM_Dandy]

Well, of course we can see that.

But, personally, I refuse to believe in anything that is so obviously a silly, contrived notion which refutes my highly touted and more obviously proven hypothesis.

So there.

[Bill_Thompson]

In the last few days I've had two GLP woo-woos reference the following Apollo 17 image (most recently in this thread):



Anyone who has followed the moon hoax thing has probably seen it. The HB story goes, the shadows must be parallel thus these could only be produced using multiple light sources. Of course the reason the astronauts' shadows appear as they do is because of the slope of the ground. In response to a challenge to demonstrate this, I took the following photo using astronaut miniatures and a single spotlight:



Oh yeah, in case you were wondering, multiple light sources would produce multiple shadows. The HBs never seem able to explain this.

All the HB's have to do is to try to show how it could be fake.

I mean, it is not enough to show a photo that looks strange. All that proves is that there is a strange photo that you cannot readily explain.

Take on the issue from another angle (no pun intended). Instead of show how one light source can create such an image, find what would happen if you actually used two light sources (even spot lights). A strange thing happens then.

When I tried this, it produced multiple shadows for all the subjects in the picture frame.