Hot new "anomaly": Missing shadow in 5903

[AstroBrant]

I've seen this come up three times in the last month. It might take hold. I've already seen one attempted explanation for it, which I believe is incorrect.

Look at the hi-res version of AS11-40-5903:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903HR.jpg

Hoax believers claim the strut shadow in the visor reflection should be visible on Neil's leg. This one had me scratching my head for awhile. It's superior to most of the objections made by hoax nuts and I think anyone pointing it out should be handled respectfully. It sure does look like the shadow should be going right up Neil's right leg.

I looked more carefully, and here's what I believe to be the case. Barely visible on the lower few inches of the outside of his leg we can see a dark region. When we consider what this scene would look like without the distortion of the curved visor, the shadow would be seen coming at Neil at a lower angle, more from the side than from in front. It is this distortion of perspective which gives the impression that it should be going more up his leg. Yes, he's standing directly on the shadow, but coming at him more from the side, it is just wrapping around the outside of his ankle area. IMHO, of course.

Perhaps my computer doesn't give the best resolution of this. I'm hoping that's the case and that one of you might have a better view.

For anyone considering looking at the DAC images of when Neil took this picture, don't bother. It doesn't go down far enough. I watched the TV transmission and I don't think it showed this moment. I'm pessimistic about it revealing anything of value, anyway.

[onebigmonkey]

This is another one of those 'impossible photo' moments they like isn't it? The ones where the photographs are impossible, but despite that there is the photo.

Are they trying to argue that someone painted in Armstrong on to the visor but got the shadows wrong?

I've downloaded the 44Mb TIF image version from here

https://archive.org/details/AS11-40-5903

and zoomed and cropped the relevant portion:



For my money, he's standing on a thin shadow and everything around him is lit - one of his shoes is visible, the other is not and you're right, it's the visor's curve that contributes to the effect.

The much more exciting detail in the visor is Earth

[Count Zero]

I looked more carefully, and here's what I believe to be the case. Barely visible on the lower few inches of the outside of his leg we can see a dark region. When we consider what this scene would look like without the distortion of the curved visor, the shadow would be seen coming at Neil at a lower angle, more from the side than from in front. It is this distortion of perspective which gives the impression that it should be going more up his leg. Yes, he's standing directly on the shadow, but coming at him more from the side, it is just wrapping around the outside of his ankle area.

Corrected for the camera's ~6 degree tilt

I think you're right.  Look at how the shadow of his left leg diverges from the shadow of the strut.  They only intersect at his foot, and I think his left foot is actually in the shadow.  The thing to remember is that, although leaning slightly to his left, Armstrong is basically standing upright, whereas the strut is at a significant angle from vertical.  Thus the shadows (distorted by perspective and the curved reflection in the faceplate) diverge in a slightly unexpected manner.

(Edited to add: Ninja'ed!)

[AstroBrant]

Corrected for the camera's ~6 degree tilt

I think you're right.  Look at how the shadow of his left leg diverges from the shadow of the strut.  They only intersect at his foot, and I think his left foot is actually in the shadow.  The thing to remember is that, although leaning slightly to his left, Armstrong is basically standing upright, whereas the strut is at a significant angle from vertical.  Thus the shadows (distorted by perspective and the curved reflection in the faceplate) diverge in a slightly unexpected manner.

(Edited to add: Ninja'ed!)

Agreed. Just a minor point: it's his right leg. I made the same mistake when I first posted this on YouTube.

[gwiz]

I'm sure that given some sunshine (in short supply here at present) I could set up a leaning pole and take a similar picture of someone with their foot in the pole's shadow.

[JayUtah]

His foot is in the shadow.

However, the expectation that the shadow should continue is apparently based on a misunderstanding of the strut's geometry.  The strut goes only up to the apex of the "knee" assembly.  That assembly is the structural hoist point of the assembled spacecraft and what gets bolted to the spacecraft adapter on the Saturn V.  So naturally that's where you attach the landing gear.  The shadow of the knee assembly is clearly visible to the right of Armstrong in the photo, and the shadow of the apex meets the shadow of the strut right at Armstrong's foot.  There simply is no more strut.

[AstroBrant]

I've also noticed another illusion which I forgot to mention in my opening post. The shadow seen between his legs is an almost perfect extension of the strut shadow, giving the impression that the strut shadow goes right through his leg. Of course, this shadow we see is the shadow of his leg, not the strut.

[ka9q]

Here's a situation where non-parallel shadows actually exist and are useful.

Just behind Armstrong you will see three distinct shadows: 1) those of his legs and 2) of the LM primary strut, the struts supporting the LM's weight. His leg shadows are not parallel to the primary strut shadow because the latter reaches the surface at an angle while Armstrong's legs are nearly perpendicular to the surface.

Armstrong's right foot is in the strut's shadow at the point where the secondary struts join the primary strut. (The secondary struts are the horizontal ones with the "X" in the middle that keep the legs extended.) The fact that the primary strut's shadow diverges from the shadow of Armstrong's right leg is simple proof that the strut's shadow should not be cast on his leg. It simply misses it except for his right foot.

[ka9q]

The shadow of the knee assembly is clearly visible to the right of Armstrong in the photo, and the shadow of the apex meets the shadow of the strut right at Armstrong's foot.  There simply is no more strut.

Jay, I think you're slightly off. You can see the shadow of the upper part of the primary strut behind Armstrong, at an angle to the shadows of his own legs (and of his trunk) because the strut reaches the surface at an angle.

Armstrong's right foot is on the junction of the primary and secondary struts, not the top of the primary strut where it joins the outriggers (i.e., the SLA mounting point). Again, you can clearly see the shadow of the top half of the primary strut behind him. The shadows immediately to Armstrong's right are those of the secondary struts, not the outriggers.

[JayUtah]

Jay, I think you're slightly off. You can see the shadow of the upper part of the primary strut behind Armstrong...

Yeah I think you are right.  I went and looked at it in the scan of the camera original and it's consistent the way you suggest.

[Luke Pemberton]

I've never really understood the strength of the shadow arguments. Surely if it was shot on Earth the same 'shadow anomalies' would exist. Again, like the Crock theory, it's easy to show that shadows do not have to be parallel, yet the same stupid argument is put forward time and time again. Same with multiple light sources and pictures of floodlit sports arenas. Easily debunkable and apparent to anyone with the slightest inkling of scruples that wishes to understand the truth.

[JayUtah]

The shadow angle arguments rarely have any real science behind them, and even Percy's proof photos exhibit the same shadow "anomalies" he says indicate some sort of fakery.  He was never willing to say why his own photos broke his "photo rules."

But I think in this case you could make the claim that if an expected shadow is missing from an object, the object was pasted into the scene -- i.e., that the photograph was composed by art methods, not staged.  That is commonly alleged for "missing fiducial" photos.  Why anyone would do that is beyond me.  Just photograph the actual scene!  Even today, the directors who strive most for realism (e.g., Christopher Nolan) still shoot full-sized scenes in camera where possible.  Then if not, they'll shoot miniatures in as big a scale as possible.  Only when all that has failed or been shown to be impractical with they resort to optical or digital methods.

And no, I haven't met Nolan.  But I have met and worked with his special effects guys.

[Luke Pemberton]

He was never willing to say why his own photos broke his "photo rules."

Good for the goose but not for the gander.

But I think in this case you could make the claim that if an expected shadow is missing from an object, the object was pasted into the scene -- i.e., that the photograph was composed by art methods, not staged.  That is commonly alleged for "missing fiducial" photos.

Point taken.

Why anyone would do that is beyond me. Just photograph the actual scene!

That was the point I was really trying to make, but I didn't convey it at all well.

[JayUtah]

You made the point well enough.  I just wanted to chastize Percy some more. 

[ka9q]

It's interesting to note that in the uncorrected (for rotation) photo of Armstrong's reflection, he appears vertical and in the corrected version, he leans to his right. This tells me his camera, despite the rotation of the image, was aligned with his body and was therefore probably mounted on his RCU bracket, not handheld.

Many of Armstrong's pictures are rotated to the right like this. I had always thought it was because he handheld his shots, but this picture suggests his camera was chest-mounted and he simply leaned his entire body to the right each time.

I wonder why.

Edited to add: It looks like his PLSS is slightly off-center (to his right). Could that be it? If I had an unbalanced weight on my right side, I think I'd tend to compensate by leaning to my left, not my right.