Examination of photos of Apollo Moon is an attempt by certain people involved in the debate on the merits of lunar conspiracy theories, although there is plenty of third-party evidence for the Apollo Moon landing. A number of allegations and denials with variable level notability filed due to this examination.
Video Examination of Apollo Moon photographs
Allegations and Objections
Missing stars
Shadows must be completely black and run parallel to each other.
-
- The shadow on the Moon is complicated because there are several light sources: the Sun, and Earth, as well as the astronauts and Lunar Module. The light from these sources is spread by moon dust in various directions, including into the shadows. In addition, the Moon's surface is not flat and the shadows fall into the crater and the hill looks longer, shorter and distorted than the simple expectations of the conspiracies. More importantly, the effects of perspective come into play, especially in rough or tilted soil. This causes non-parallel shadows even on objects very close to each other, and can be observed easily on Earth where a fence or tree is found. And finally, the camera used is equipped with a wide-angle lens, which naturally produces a smooth version of the distortion of the fisheye lens.
The photographer's shadow should point to his straight position below the center of the bottom edge of the photo.
-
- No explanation is given about why the photographer's foot should be under the photo center. Indeed, many photos show this is not the case.
Apparently "hot spots" in some photos
The conspiracy claims that the classic Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin on the Moon (AS11-40-5903) looks as if a large spotlight is used at close range. Jan Lundberg, an engineer at Hasselblad who is responsible for producing photographic cameras used for Apollo missions, stated: "Yes, it looks like he's standing in the spotlight and I can not explain that Umm, that escapes me why.So maybe you should find Armstrong and ask for it! "
-
- Aldrin's photo illumination referenced by Lundberg is an artifact to change the brightness and contrast of images, and is not found in all reproductions. This can be seen in the next section, where this photo is displayed in two versions.
- Moon dust reflects light in a way similar to road signs or wet grass - a large amount of light is reflected back to the light source (Sun in this case) rather than scattered in all directions as is done by the Earth's sand. This can be observed on Earth, as it explains why the Moon is full more than twice as bright as half the Moon. This effect explains the hot spots in the photograph containing the shadow of the photographer himself.
- Armstrong's sun-drenched sundress is in the right place to provide light for the hotspot in Aldrin's photo on the stairs.
- The "hot spots" are discussed on the worsening website, Moon Base Clavius ​​(Clavius.org).
In the Apollo 12 sound recording during the first EVA of the mission, astronaut Pete Conrad said, "Boy, the sun is bright, it's like someone shining a spotlight in your hand." [...] "I'll tell you... You know, this Sun... It's really... It's like someone has a super bright spot."
-
- Conrad simply describes the brightness of the sunlight on the Moon.
Problem with crosshairs in photo
There are some problems with the appearance of the viewfinder in the photos; this is present in the picture as a result of the RÃÆ'® plate seau inserted into the camera.
- a) In some photos, the crosshairs (fiduciary markers) appear to be behind the object, not in front of them where it should be, as if the photos were changed. In photography, the bright white color (the object behind the crosshair) makes the black object (crosshair) invisible because of the saturation effect in the film emulsion. The film particles that should be black are exposed to light from adjacent light particles. Ironically, this saturation effect will not happen if the shot is drawn in the post, and so is the original photo evidence. Trying to change a photo that already has a crosshairs will make the composing process much more difficult.
- b) In the classic Aldrin photo on the Moon below (on the left), the reticle (scratch on the scratched camera) is too low. Since the crosshairs are in a fixed position on all images, the lower reticles in this figure indicate that the image has been cut. This is the case even on a 70 mm NASA duplicate transparency problem. The 70 mm transparency should show the entire image 'full'. The conspirators say that the only explanation for this is if the original full transparency needs to be trimmed because the embarrassing artifacts such as a scene slice of the stage are in a shot.
-
- The actual photo display below (on the right) (source: AS11-40-5903 or AS11-40-5903 high resolution) is cut right above Aldrin, intersects the Aldrin antenna (except for small parts). Duplicate transparencies do not have to be exact copies of the original. The publicly released photo version was cropped and recompiled by NASA within hours of making the movie available, with the addition of black space added at the top of most versions released for what NASA calls aesthetic reasons. This web page has NASA photo history.
- c) In other photos, reticules are not in a straight line, or appearing in the 'wrong' place, indicating that the photo has been processed.
-
- Clavius.org explains that the methodology proposed by conspiracists to physicians photographs with "wrong" reticules is often contradictory and generally requires unreasonable lengths to explain "inconsistencies" when there is a plausible explanation. In particular, molds are often cut and rotated, leading to the illusion of reticulum that occurs outside the center or "not straight."
Backgrounds that look identical in Apollo 15 photos are taken in different locations
There was a problem with an Apollo 15 photo that had an identical background.
-
- The comparison of background details said to be identical in fact shows a significant change in the relative position of the hills that is consistent with the location claimed that the picture was taken. Parallax effects clearly show that the images are taken from very different locations around the landing site.
-
- Claims that the background display is identical while foreground changes (for example, from a large rock-studded crater to Lunar Module) are described trivially when images are taken from a nearby location, such as seeing the same distant mountains on Earth from a location which separates hundreds of feet indicates different foreground items.
-
- Furthermore, since there is only a very tenuous atmosphere on the Moon, very distant objects will appear clearer and closer to the human eye. What appears to be hills nearby in some photographs, is actually a mountain range of several kilometers and about 10-20 kilometers away. Changes in this very distant background are quite subtle, and can be misconstrued without any change at all.
-
- Since the Moon is also much smaller than Earth, the horizon is significantly closer in the photograph than the Earth observer is used to seeing (the 1.7 m eye on completely flat ground will see the horizon 4.7 km away on Earth , but only 2.4 km away on the Moon). This can lead to a confusing interpretation of the image.
-
- One specific case was denied in "Who Mourns For Apollo?" by Mike Bara.
-
-
- While it's true that there is no fog to help in assessing distance, the maximum distance to the horizon is much closer than on Earth, because of the smaller Moon size. This limits the scope of the same object to appear in various shots taken in different locations.
-
-
-
- For the flat area of ​​the Moon, the distance to the horizon? sqrt (2 * Moon radius * high observer)
-
-
-
- The average Radiation of the Moon is 1,080 miles, and assume generously that astronauts hold a 5-foot camera, or 0.000947 miles above the surface (cameras are shown in photographs because they do not have a viewfinder, and the astronauts seem to hold them in the center of their chests, so the five legs are generous).
-
-
-
- These numbers give distance = sqrt (2 * 1080 * 0.000947) = 2 miles.
-
-
-
- It seems that this will be far enough for the terrain feature to appear in shooting from a separate location, but may not be "several miles apart". Without having specific information about which shots and terrains are supposedly containing, there is no definitive answer.
High number of photos -
-
- The astronauts trained in photography before the mission. Because there is no weather and bright sunlight allows for the use of small holes, with great depth of field, equipment is generally stored in one place throughout the mission. All it takes to take a picture is to open the shutter. Automatic film rolls.
-
- Under these conditions it is possible to take two photos per second best. The cameras are in a bracket mounted on the front of their space suit, so they look straight ahead at what they want to photograph; no viewfinder is needed. Also, many of those photos are stereoscopic pairs or panoramic set of images, which are taken immediately after each other. Atlas Image of Apollo Lunar and Planetary Institute shows that 70 mm 40/S magazine from Apollo 11 has 123 photos taken during the walk on the surface - less than one per minute. In addition, by looking at the photos in sequence, one can see that very often several photos are taken in sequence. Here is a list of photos of Apollo 11 surfaces (AS11-40-5850 to AS11-40-5970). As can be seen from the map, many photos are taken from the same position.
-
- The astronauts are trained to use their equipment, and the shots and poses are planned earlier as part of the mission. NASA chose only the best photos to be released to the public, and some photos were trimmed to improve their composition. There are many highly exposed, focused, and unstructured images among thousands of photographs taken by Apollo astronauts. All photos taken on the Moon's surface by astronauts can be seen in the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. Photos taken on high quality Hasselblad cameras with Zeiss lenses, using 70 mm medium format film.
-
- The object in the form of "C" most likely prints imperfections not in the original movie from the camera, but only in copies of the next generation AS16-107-17446 (and no copy of 17445). One suggestion, as seen in the next link, is when the enlarged 'C' is the circular hair that is on a special photo print that is then multiplied. (See "Who Mourns For Apollo?" By Mike Bara and "Clavius: Photo Analysis - lunar rover" by Jay Windley.)
-
- Images were created (for books) from some individual photos of the Hasselblad camera (which was stored at the time), and did not appear in the English paperback version of 1995, although there is no point in the nature mentioned in the book. It's used as a substitute for the only real image available, from TV monitors, which the book editors think seems too rough to present in the book image section.
- The Lunar Module and its shadow are derived from the left/right reversal AS14-66-9276. Astronauts on the right are the left/right reversals of AS14-66-9240, TV cameras have been removed. The astronaut on the left is a left/right reversal AS14-66-9241, again with the TV camera removed. This flag is from AS14-66-9232 or one of the similar photos. Some of the equipment comes from photos similar to AS14-67-9361. Golf clubs, balls, and some shadows have been added. See this web page for dialogue and discussion of activities photographed by fake photos.
-
- The ball moves only two or three feet. Shepard also states that the second ball goes "miles and miles and miles" (off-camera from broadcast television), which is obviously a joke, like a comment about a wedge. Then, in an interview, Shepard said, "Then I think, at the same speed of the clubhead, the ball will go at least six times farther.There is absolutely no obstacle, so if you happen to be twisting, it will not slice or hook because there is no atmosphere to make it change. "A piece comes from hitting the ball from the outside of the club's head, rather than hitting it square in the center of the club's head, versus hooking it up, who beat it off the inside of the club's head. Shepard does, basically, "slicing" the ball at first, and as he notes, being in the moon's atmosphere completely absent, the ball does not curve laterally as a grounded slice.
-
- The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal contains the actual dialogue, with the golf section around "135: 08: 17." Right above "135: 08: 11" is a video clip of the golf sequence. Under "135: 09: 26" is a discussion of a mock photo in "Moon Shot."
- Flag waving
- No photographers
- No stars
- There is no landing crater
- Lighting varies
- The footprints are too obvious
- No visible rest
- Strange lights
- The landing conspiracy theories of the month
- Third party evidence for Apollo Moon landings
- "Extreme Sadness: The Apollo 11 Moonwalk Pictures" by contributors Apollo Lunar Surface Journal Joseph O'Dea. Gallery complete image of Apollo 11 EVA.
- The Apollo 11 Image Library in Apollo Lunar Surface Journal
- The Apollo 12 Image Library in Apollo Lunar Surface Journal
- Apollo 14 Apollo Library in Apollo Lunar Surface Journal
- Apollo 15 Apollo Library in Apollo Lunar Surface Journal
- The Apollo 16 Image Library in Apollo Lunar Surface Journal
- The Apollo 17 Image Library in Apollo Lunar Surface Journal
- "The Apollo Moon flag is still standing, the picture shows" from BBC News, July 30, 2012
- LRO photos compared to Apollo 11 movies
When the number of photos taken by astronauts during EVAs of all Apollo missions is shared by the duration of all EVAs, a person arrives at a figure of 1.19 photos per minute. It is one photo per 50 seconds. The time discount spent on other activities produces one photo per 15 seconds for Apollo 11. This is even more remarkable because many places in the distances are miles away and will take enough travel time to reach, especially in large pressure settings. In addition, the camera is not equipped with a viewfinder or automatic exposure control, which means taking good photos will take longer.
Quality of photos
Given the lack of time and viewfinders, the photos look much better than expected, with perfect focus and exposure, the cost made by Ralph RenÃÆ'Â ©.
Photos containing artefacts
There are artifacts in photographs such as two that seem to fit 'C in the rock and on the ground (the rock was seen in NASA photos AS16-107-17445 and 17446). They can "support the continuity marker." The conspirators say that the first copy of the released photo does show these signs, and that the next release may have been engineered, and that the attempt to dispel the prejudice of this issue focuses exclusively on one example on the rock, ignoring the second on the ground and by chance two, artifacts suspected to be identical in the same photo.
Artifact in movie
The 1994 hardcover version Moon Shot by Apollo 14 astronaut Alan Shepard and the Apollo-Soyuz Test project crew. Deke Slayton contains a photo of Shepard playing golf on the Moon with another astronaut. The picture was obviously fake, no one else took a shot from both, and his artwork was ugly (like a large golf ball), but the photo was presented as if it were an original photo.
Shepard shuffled the first ball and hit the second neatly enough. From Houston, Mission Control's CAPCOM, astronaut Fred Haise, joked to Shepard, "It looks like an incision for me, Al," but a piece is caused by uneven airflow on the ball. This is not important with the Moon-thin atmosphere.
Clear air constraints
Without air resistance, the projectile path is a parabola. The apparent deviation of the dust particles from the ideal parabolic path on footage of the Apollo 16 lunar rover is attributed to the influence of air resistance, implying that the tape is false. The argument would make sense are dust particles that are released at constant speed by moving sources at constant speed. However, the wheels release particles at varying speeds, as the rover moves over a deep dust bag.
Maps Examination of Apollo Moon photographs
National Geographic Examination
In 2009, the National Geographic Society examined eight conspiracists based on photographs. Their analysis is titled "Photo: 8 Myth of Hoax Moon-Landing - Busted".
See also
Note
Quote
References
External links
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments