Apollo 15 backgrounds... again

[Trebor]

I'm sure this one has come up before, but I have a HB complaining about the 'similar' backgrounds in AS15-82-11082 and AS15-82-11057.
As far as I can tell 11057 was shot from station 8 where they set up the ALSEP and 11082 was shot from station 9; about 1.4 km from the LM.
Would the LM even be visible from station 9? I seem to recall it was not but my memory is fuzzy.
And does anyone know what the approximate distances to the mountains are?

ETA
Found this thread which seems relevant:
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1146.msg38862#msg38862

[Abaddon]

Here is the topo map of the EVAs.
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15LRVTrav1971.jpg

At station 9 there is a honking great 30 meter ridge between the astronauts and the LM. 11082 couldn't possibly show the LM unless your hoaxer wants to claim Hasselblads are x-ray capable.

In contrast, 11057 was taken just as they were leaving the LM from the position of the ALSEP. No ridge in the way.

Additionally, 11057 was taken at the start of EVA-3. Station 8 was on EVA-2.

How far to the mountains from station? 4 kilometers or so from the topo map scale as a quick stab. (pure guesstimate by eye)

[Trebor]

Here is the topo map of the EVAs.
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15LRVTrav1971.jpg

Thanks for that, that map is superb.

[Abaddon]

Here is the topo map of the EVAs.
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15LRVTrav1971.jpg

Thanks for that, that map is superb.

No probs. In fact, 11082 actually confirms the ridgeline sloping upwards left to right roughly along the second row of crosshairs.

[Abaddon]

If it helps your arguments here is the same image with brightness/contrast adjusted. Makes the ridgeline stand out.

[Rob48]

I'm sure this one has come up before, but I have a HB complaining about the 'similar' backgrounds in AS15-82-11082 and AS15-82-11057.

What is the HB's problem with the backgrounds, exactly? "Similar"? They are the same hills! If he/she thinks they are a painted backdrop, then why aren't they identical, rather than just similar? If they are not, in fact, real, distant, three-dimensional hills, then why does a comparison of the two images show changes in perspective, with the ridge lines hiding portions of the hill behind? (Look particularly at the "notch" at the lowest point of the "skyline".)



(Note, brightness and contrast adjusted to show detail better)

Surely photos like these, showing the same backgrounds from different vantage points, are some of the best proof that they were taken in a real, vast, three-dimensional landscape?

[JayUtah]

Yeah, this old chestnut.  Parallax is no great mystery; I guess it's time for the penguin to make another appearance.

[bknight]

Yeah, this old chestnut.  Parallax is no great mystery; I guess it's time for the penguin to make another appearance.

Ah, Jay I have been patiently waiting for the penguin re-run.  It does show the parallax in context with these A15 photos.  Seem to me that the two images in question are indeed taken far apart looking at a distant object, but that they are looking in slightly different azimuths.

[JayUtah]

As you can see, the penguin is still available.

[bknight]

Right next to Sulu, how appropriate.

[Abaddon]

As you can see, the penguin is still available.

Ah. On the substitutes bench ready to be tactically deployed.

[tikkitakki]

the penguin

Burma!

[JayUtah]

Right next to Sulu, how appropriate.

Indeed, George and his husband are wonderful and very cordial people.  Fans of Futurama will recognize to whom the autograph is inscribed.

Also, double points if you can identify the significance of the teapot.

[JayUtah]

the penguin

Burma!

No need to panic.

[raven]

Also, double points if you can identify the significance of the teapot.

As modelled, that tea pot originally had no base, yes?