Double LM Shadows.

[Kiwi]

Duplicate to this level: https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157659051610141/with/21683522405/ on a car parking lot or sand flat using a single light source, natural or artificial
 and using https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/apolloSpacecraftWindows.pdf if possible but two ordinary parallel panes of glass will do. Will cut you some slack for natural light and not being on the Lunar surface.

I've attempted it, so far, 2 lights work, easily, 2 panes do nothing.

Combat Wombat: The long-term photographer in me (it's now 52) can't help asking:--

1. Why would two panes of ordinary glass work?

And shouldn't they be (as illustrated and described in your link, pages 9 and 10):--
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/apolloSpacecraftWindows.pdf

2. Of different thicknesses which are the same as the actual panes?
3. The thinner pane made of annealed glass and equally resistant to hurtling lunar micrometeoroids as the real thing?
4. The thicker pane made of chemically tempered glass?
5. Both separated by the same large distance, about 2.5 times the thickness of both panes?
6. Have BR (blue-red) coatings?
7. Have HEA (high-efficiency antireflection) coatings?
8. Have ECC (electrical conductive coatings) that are deliberately applied unevenly to thicknesses of 400 to 700 angstroms?
9. Have the same 82% light transmission as the original two?
10. Have the same 5% reflectivity?

And when doing the experiment:--

11. Shouldn't the sun be at the same elevation as in the lunar photos?
12. Shouldn't the glass panes be angled to the sun in exactly same degrees (both left-right and up-down) as in the lunar photos?
13. Shouldn't the camera be angled to the sun in exactly the same degrees as in the lunar photos?
14. Shouldn't the surface that the shadow and sun fall on be of the same reflectivity as lunar regolith, with all its little pieces of glass?

And finally:

We have over and over tried to convey a simple truth to you: That the shadows aren't doubled. A single shadow has had sunlit ground reflected onto it by the LM's windows, and possibly between the panes. Outside the LM, that single shadow is unaffected. So:--

15. Have we explained it often enough yet?
16. Have you finally got it?

[Von_Smith]

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.

Hardly a comparison! This aircraft is how high? Of course it's shadow is fuzzy and indistinct! It's high, on Earth and it's cast onto a grassy surface. I work under heavy lift choppers, I see their shadows from 20 to 150 meters as they hover, they look much the same as this one. It's not inter-reflection.

Duplicate to this level: https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157659051610141/with/21683522405/ on a car parking lot or sand flat using a single light source, natural or artificial
 and using https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/apolloSpacecraftWindows.pdf if possible but two ordinary parallel panes of glass will do. Will cut you some slack for natural light and not being on the Lunar surface.

I've attempted it, so far, 2 lights work, easily, 2 panes do nothing. I intend to upgrade when time permits but it looks like someone will get there before me! Cheers!

In space, no one can hear you shift the goalposts.

eta:  Snark aside, here's a question for you:  Can *you* "duplicate to this level" the effect using the method you claim created it?  Can your hypothesis pass a test that you claim ours fails?  The closest I could come was with two light sources arranged vertically at just the right distance to the object.  And even that wasn't "to this level".

[Jason Thompson]

When a bright area, which is essentially light, impinges on a shadow, an area absent light it tends to weaken and dissipate the shadow. It removes fine details but in this case much detail is preserved and duplicated https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157659051610141/with/21657461446/.

You keep linking to this album, and it actually contains a few good examples of why you are simply wrong about the 'double-lit' suggestion. The biggest giveaway is that the 'double shadow' of the LM in each of the images it appears in is different. The angle and extent of the double boundary, and even which side it appears on, changes in each image. Not one of them shows the same double shadow. Now by any hypothesis that multiple light sources are being used and that this is a genuine doubling of the actual shadow, that requires the relative positions of the LM and the individual light sources to be changed between photographs. That hypothesis therefore fails due to the absurdity of doing such a thing. On the other hand if, as we have been telling you, it is purely an effect of the LM windows, then this difference in the shadows between images is expected as a result of changes in the position and angle of the camera relative to the window. That the camera angle is changing is clear since the different images are clearly taken from different positions and angles.

Now, which of those is more ikely to be the case?

[onebigmonkey]

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

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!

And those post-EVA2 images of Earth also contain Venus, exactly where it should be. Got an explanation for that?