Apollo Discussions > The Hoax Theory

Aulis "ray tracing" proof of secondary light source

<< < (2/2)


--- Quote from: Allan F on February 03, 2023, 01:10:30 PM ---As it is only half a degree across.......
--- End quote ---

That's still enough to produce a noticeable penumbra, particularly towards the tips of long shadows when the sun is low in the sky.

Peter B:

--- Quote from: Allan F on February 03, 2023, 01:10:30 PM ---
--- Quote from: BertieSlack on February 03, 2023, 11:15:14 AM ---His claim that "shadows (including the analysis of shadows seen in the helmet reflection) are incompatible with a single point-like source of light" was particularly hilarious. Since when was the sun ever 'point-like'?

--- End quote ---

As it is only half a degree across, it can be assumed to be a point source for most practical purposes. One thing you CAN see, is the edges of the shadows are very well defined, proving an approximate point-source light.

--- End quote ---

Which means "yes for some cases and no for other cases" - perfect for sowing confusion if we're careless with explanations. And even if we are perfect, hoaxers can still accuse us of cherry-picking: "So is the Sun a point source or not?" That's hoaxer catnip.

OK this is back of an envelope stuff but...

I've taken an image from the photogrammetry of the landing site report here:


and positioned a red dot at where Buzz is standing for the photograph. The yellow line is the actual sun path from roughly 88 degrees. Hopefully it's obvious from that the shadow from Buzz is entirely what you'd expect.

What he seems to be suggesting in his first set up is that the light source (ie the sun) is coming form a point 34 degrees or so from a datum that uses the direction from Neil to Buzz as zero (the blue line, derived from the photogrammetry map):

That matches very well with the actual sun direction of around 88 degrees from north (the yellow line) and the photogrammetry map.

What he then seems to be doing is picking a distant shadow, assuming a slightly different direction for the light, suggesting that there is an additional source some 10 degrees off from the original:

and then wondering why the shadows don't match up with that light source.

What he's proposing is physically impossible, and displays the traditional HB ability to think in 3 dimensions when confronted with a 2D image.

He also makes several calculations assuming that the LEVA, and the visor, are perfect spheres.

They aren't, as shown here:

So any reflections aren't going to conform to his calculations, particularly on the visor edges.

Original images https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/gold-visor-apollo-extravehicular/nasm_A20050453000


[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page

Go to full version