Apollo XIII-inconsistences

[Jason Thompson]

You are wrong: the only chance that the cylinder service module is invisible, it is that the cone of the capsule points directly toward the viewer ... this is clearly not the case.

What is the angle of the camera's line of sight relative to the angle the CSM is pointing? How does the confined space of the LM interior and the position of the window affect this? How close is the camera to the service module? How far off-centre from the conical service module must the camera be to bring the cylindrical service module into view assuming the axis of the CSM and the axis of the camera are parallel and offset?

In other words, tarkus, show your work, don't make sweeping statements that 'cearly' the 'only' possible thing you claim is not happening. Show that it is clear, and show that it is the only possible arragement.

[smartcooky]

You are wrong: the only chance that the cylinder service module is invisible, it is that the cone of the capsule points directly toward the viewer ... this is clearly not the case.

What is the angle of the camera's line of sight relative to the angle the CSM is pointing? How does the confined space of the LM interior and the position of the window affect this? How close is the camera to the service module? How far off-centre from the conical service module must the camera be to bring the cylindrical service module into view assuming the axis of the CSM and the axis of the camera are parallel and offset?

In other words, tarkus, show your work, don't make sweeping statements that 'cearly' the 'only' possible thing you claim is not happening. Show that it is clear, and show that it is the only possible arragement.

The only part of the LM that is far enough away from the centreline of the stack to get a view of the SM is the part I have highlighted in green (and I have gone back and done the same in the stack diagram I posted in my previous post.

I am pretty sure that, not only are there no windows in that part, but also that the crew have no access to that part, at least not internally. Someone more expert that me will confirm or otherwise.

I have also highlighted the location of the docking window (located above the main window) through which those photos were probably taken. I am not sure if there is another docking window above the other main window. No doubt someone will confirm.

[onebigmonkey]

Or let's keep things very very simple:

Am I holding just the lid of my grandson's jar of zoo animals:



Or the whole jar:



Same photo, cropped differently.

[gwiz]

I am pretty sure that, not only are there no windows in that part, but also that the crew have no access to that part, at least not internally. Someone more expert that me will confirm or otherwise.

You are correct.  The tank is outside the pressurised crew cabin, the crew would have to do an EVA to reach it.

[JayUtah]

I am not sure if there is another docking window above the other main window. No doubt someone will confirm.

Only the commander's side had an overhead docking window.  And yes, the ascent-stage propellant tanks are outside the pressure vessel.

tarkus, in case it hasn't been made readily apparent to you, you are speaking to people here who have an intimate and extensive knowledge of how these spacecraft were designed and operated.  You are also speaking in some cases to professional photographers who understand with similar skill how objects are seen when arranged relative to the viewer.  In light of that, I agree with Jason Thompson:  you are going to have to show a lot more work than simply declaring the objects in these photos must be as you say they are.

[tarkus]

You are wrong: the only chance that the cylinder service module is invisible, it is that the cone of the capsule points directly toward the viewer ... this is clearly not the case.

Welcome back.

What is your experience in photo analysis?  How did you come to this conclusion? Perhaps you could tell us what the relationship between the LM and SM are since you insist it cannot be the one evident in the photo.   Please show your work?

Are you not responding properly, and please do not divert the discussion ... I repeat.:
Only if the tip of the cone points directly to the observer CM, SM cylinder will be hidden by the capsule. Clearly not the case. Two examples:

1) Cylinder NOT visible:



2) Cylinder visible:


The image of the SM can only be obtained from the LM (coupled to CM), and from that point of view it is IMPOSSIBLE cylinder SM is hidden as is arguing wrongly.
In this other image the error is best seen with models ... where is the SM?


??

SM visible:



SM not visible:

[onebigmonkey]

I repeat:

The SM may not be visible, thanks to the perspective of the observer, but structures attached to it are, namely the EVA floodlight boom and also in your other examples the communications antennae.

[Andromeda]

Your question has been well-answered, Tarkus.

Also it is poor form here to tell people how they may or may not respond to you.

[onebigmonkey]

I'd also point out that the APollo 17 example you use comes from a magazine that shows the CSM in full

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/magazine/?145

[tarkus]

I repeat:

The SM may not be visible, thanks to the perspective of the observer, but structures attached to it are, namely the EVA floodlight boom and also in your other examples the communications antennae.

Cover your eyes is a common tactic. Not you refute anything I've exposed. No error of perspective, if the cone is to the left, the cylinder must be visible on the right.

[onebigmonkey]

I repeat:

The SM may not be visible, thanks to the perspective of the observer, but structures attached to it are, namely the EVA floodlight boom and also in your other examples the communications antennae.

Cover your eyes is a common tactic. Not you refute anything I've exposed. No error of perspective, if the cone is to the left, the cylinder must be visible on the right.

If the SM is not there, please explain the presence of structures that are attached to it.

[Andromeda]

"Cover your eyes is a common tactic."

Ohhh!  So that's why you've refused to acknowledge the answers you've received (especially the excellent diagrams by smartcooky).

[AtomicDog]

Tarkus,

It always amuses me how people with no knowledge of photography like to try their hand at analyzing Apollo photos without first honing their skills on, say the family photo album before tackling pictures taken on another world.

If you did so, you would find out that the anomalies you have discovered aren't anomalies at all. Like near objects in a wide angle shot obscuring objects further away from the camera.

[onebigmonkey]

Exhibit a, a CSM, cunningly disguised as a bottle of malt vinegar in my kitchen:



Exhibit b, the CSM with the docking drogue (or bottle top) to one side:



Any comments Tarkus?

[Zakalwe]

Cover your eyes is a common tactic. Not you refute anything I've exposed. No error of perspective, if the cone is to the left, the cylinder must be visible on the right.

Oh dear...another hoaxie that cannot understand perspective distortion! While I appreciate that English is not your native language, I would also advise you to reset your attitude. You clearly have a very limited grasp on the subject matter and your approach comes across as arrogant. Given your inability to understand simple concepts, then you should realise that your arrogance (if it is that) is probably part of the reason why you are struggling to understand such simple ideas. To first learn you must realise that you do not know all the answers!

Coincidentally, I was watching this video earlier. Whilst not directly relating to the matter in hand, it has some good explanations of the problems that happens when you project a 3D world onto a 2D plane (such as a film camera).

This Wiki article will also help you to understand the effects of perspective distortion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_%28photography%29

Finally, you appear to have ignored my earlier post. For convenience, here it is again. Care to comment?

You are wrong: the only chance that the cylinder service module is invisible, it is that the cone of the capsule points directly toward the viewer ... this is clearly not the case.

And what about commenting on the other areas that you were so sure of in your original post?

• The number 13?
• The filming of Haise?
• The use of the LM motor?
• The heatshield?

Why ignore the answers that you were given on these to comment only on your erroneous interpretation of the photos of the CSM/LM stack? I wouldn't like to assume that you have now conceded the other points......I'd much rather hear you say that.

Exhibit a, a CSM, cunningly disguised as a bottle of malt vinegar in my kitchen:



Exhibit b, the CSM with the docking drogue (or bottle top) to one side:



Any comments Tarkus?

Excellent example OBM. I hope that you put that vinegar to good use on a pile of fish'n'chips soon?