Double LM Shadows.

[Combat Wombat]

Combat Wombat, it is interesting that you discount orbital photos that show double images because they contradict the explanation that you are looking for. The scientific method calls for following the evidence, wherever it leads.

Sure, from magazine AS14-66. Contains shots through the LM forward and docking windows from both surface and orbit. Bright objects on dark backgrounds https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656723857913/page2
From AS11-37. Contains orbital, pre and post EVA shots. Double earth, horizon on dark background from orbit. Double LM shadows only on surface post EVA, no comparative doubling of horizon, rocks, craters or human artifacts.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157658638144538.

Thanks, C.W

[AtomicDog]

Combat Wombat, the double paned window theory explains BOTH the orbital and the ground photos.
Your "theory" explains only the ground photos.
Which is more likely to be correct?

[Jason Thompson]

Sure, from magazine AS14-66. Contains shots through the LM forward and docking windows from both surface and orbit. Bright objects on dark backgrounds

(Emphasis mine)

Combat Wombat, this is exactly the point. What you are describing in terms of double shadows is actually double brightly lit lunar surface. It becomes apparent in the LM shadow because that shadow is big enough to show the effect. Whether you see a 'double LM shadow' or double horizon depends on the offset of the 'ghost' image over the primary image. You don't see double crater or rock shadows because they are too small to show the effect within the shadow (that is the shadow in the main and ghost image don't overlap), and the surrounding surface is too bright to easily visually discern the sightly less bright area where the 'double shadow' of the crater or rock is. Same on the horizon. The difference in brightness is not easily picked out if the ghost image horizon lies below the primary image horizon, but is easily distinguished in the black sky if the ghost image horizon is above the primary. THis was what I said to you some months ago.

Now, here are some questions for you to ponder:

Why, if these 'double shadows' are caused by multiple light sources, are they only apparent when photographed through a window? This double effect should be seen in plenty of other images as well from the lunar surface if it is caused by something outside the scene and not the window.

Why, if trying to fake a scene lit by one source, would they even have used multiple lights in the first place?

[Von_Smith]

Combat Wombat, it is interesting that you discount orbital photos that show double images because they contradict the explanation that you are looking for. The scientific method calls for following the evidence, wherever it leads.

Sure, from magazine AS14-66. Contains shots through the LM forward and docking windows from both surface and orbit. Bright objects on dark backgrounds https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656723857913/page2
From AS11-37. Contains orbital, pre and post EVA shots. Double earth, horizon on dark background from orbit. Double LM shadows only on surface post EVA, no comparative doubling of horizon, rocks, craters or human artifacts.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157658638144538.

Thanks, C.W

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.

[smartcooky]

The degree of inter-reflectivity caused by shooting though windows and glass depends on a number of criteria

Thickness of the glass in single pane glass.
Optical quality of the glass.
Separation between sheets of glass in double glazed windows
Curvature of the glass
The angle at which the photo is taken (w.r.t. the glass)

There are other criteria, but those are the biggies!

Additionally, cropping, enlarging and rotating the image will all affect the apparent inter-reflectivity in the final image.

[smartcooky]

dupe

[smartcooky]

Sure, from magazine AS14-66. Contains shots through the LM forward and docking windows from both surface and orbit. Bright objects on dark backgrounds

(Emphasis mine)

Combat Wombat, this is exactly the point. What you are describing in terms of double shadows is actually double brightly lit lunar surface. It becomes apparent in the LM shadow because that shadow is big enough to show the effect. Whether you see a 'double LM shadow' or double horizon depends on the offset of the 'ghost' image over the primary image. You don't see double crater or rock shadows because they are too small to show the effect within the shadow (that is the shadow in the main and ghost image don't overlap), and the surrounding surface is too bright to easily visually discern the sightly less bright area where the 'double shadow' of the crater or rock is. Same on the horizon. The difference in brightness is not easily picked out if the ghost image horizon lies below the primary image horizon, but is easily distinguished in the black sky if the ghost image horizon is above the primary. THis was what I said to you some months ago.

Now, here are some questions for you to ponder:

Why, if these 'double shadows' are caused by multiple light sources, are they only apparent when photographed through a window? This double effect should be seen in plenty of other images as well from the lunar surface if it is caused by something outside the scene and not the window.

Why, if trying to fake a scene lit by one source, would they even have used multiple lights in the first place?

If I may, I will add another questions for CW to ponder

Why, if these 'double shadows' are caused by multiple light sources, are they parallel? Shadows caused by multiple light sources diverge and at angle equal to the angle between the light sources as subtended by the source of the shadow.   

[Abaddon]

I shall be brief. It has been a trying day in the real world and I am tired and close to a rage rant, which would not be a pleasant spectacle.

To summarise...
CW you do not understand anything from the list following
Physics
Optics
Celestial mechanics
Orbital mechanincs
Mensuration
3d Spatial reasoning
Environmental design

Want me to continue with that list? I could, but I am in a serious strop right now so best not. I would merely start swearing out of sheer frustration and boy can I swear. This would not be a productive route.

I weep for the fate of humanity if this is all we have to offer. The aliens don't need to invade. They must simply patiently wait. We will do the rest to ourselves. 

[smartcooky]

If I may, I will add another questions for CW to ponder

Why, if these 'double shadows' are caused by multiple light sources, are they parallel? Shadows caused by multiple light sources diverge and at angle equal to the angle between the light sources as subtended by the source of the shadow.   

Correction to my last post. I should have said the angle between the light sources at the source (vertex) of the shadow

"Vertex" is the correct description of the shadow source in this context, not "subtended by"

[onebigmonkey]

Combat Wombat, it is interesting that you discount orbital photos that show double images because they contradict the explanation that you are looking for. The scientific method calls for following the evidence, wherever it leads.

Sure, from magazine AS14-66. Contains shots through the LM forward and docking windows from both surface and orbit. Bright objects on dark backgrounds https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656723857913/page2
From AS11-37. Contains orbital, pre and post EVA shots. Double earth, horizon on dark background from orbit. Double LM shadows only on surface post EVA, no comparative doubling of horizon, rocks, craters or human artifacts.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157658638144538.

Thanks, C.W

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.

Indeed, and those double images of Earth (taken through the docking window of the LM) reveal something else, namely Venus, exactly where it should be at the end of EVA-2. The presence of Venus is a pointer to something that is common to many that question the Apollo images' veracity: literally missing the bigger picture.

- Zooming on on a double image of Earth (through a double glazed window) but missing the fact that it is astronomically and meteorologically accurate.

- Picking out a double shadow onthe lunar surface but neglecting the fact that there are details recorded on the surface that could only have been photographed by actually being there.

- Identifying something unusual in a couple of photographs while ignoring the context of all the other images in a magazine that clearly place the photographer in cislunar space, lunar orbit or on the lunar surface.

The cart is being put before the horse - instead of saying "These photographs of the lunar surface contain an odd phenomenon, what could cause that?", the question is being wrongly transposed into "There is an odd phenomenon here, it can't therefore be on the lunar surface".

One thing is puzzling me though - that shadow 'hole' in AS12-48-7024 - what could be causing that? I'm guessing light bouncing off a part of the LM.

[Zakalwe]

Bright objects on dark backgrounds

Ever looked at a full/nearly full Moon on a clear night through double-glazed windows? If not, then try it and get back to us.

https://twitter.com/MentalJargon/status/1090869388264292353



Is it your contention that this random image off Twitter is also faked or shot in a studio somewhere?

[Allan F]

One thing is puzzling me though - that shadow 'hole' in AS12-48-7024 - what could be causing that? I'm guessing light bouncing off a part of the LM.

No, it is sunlight passing between the ascent and descent stage. Just beside the ascent engine bell.

[onebigmonkey]

One thing is puzzling me though - that shadow 'hole' in AS12-48-7024 - what could be causing that? I'm guessing light bouncing off a part of the LM.

No, it is sunlight passing between the ascent and descent stage. Just beside the ascent engine bell.

I had a vague recollection of that as an explanation but couldn't find similar examples or photos of the LM that showed the gap

[Combat Wombat]

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

[Combat Wombat]

One thing is puzzling me though - that shadow 'hole' in AS12-48-7024 - what could be causing that? I'm guessing light bouncing off a part of the LM.

No, it is sunlight passing between the ascent and descent stage. Just beside the ascent engine bell.

I had a vague recollection of that as an explanation but couldn't find similar examples or photos of the LM that showed the gap

This is from A14 but I can't find any clear images on A12 but is this the hole in question? https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21672156762/in/album-72157656723857913/. It's just above and left of the UNITED STATES sticker. Is that the hole that made this? (See attached)

Thanks