There is every reason to doubt the Apollo missions, firstly they appear to have been missions without a purpose. The conventional explanation is that the Apollo missions were part of a cold war space race, but as the cold war was a hoax in itself (the United States political elite helped and armed the soviets and even supplied tech to upgrade their missiles to keep the cold war illusion going) there seems no purpose to it.
Even if the cold wars would be a hoax, you can't change the fact that this can simply not faked by a studio. Even with modern technologies we still can't do it. Avatar is the closest to being realistic so far.
But let’s assume there was a rational purpose, maybe a desire to achieve a permanent presence and to progress outward from there. So NASA spends a kings ransom building a missile system that seems to work, what do they do, after some missions they scrap the whole moon program. All the money, the experience gained down the toilet. The explanation? the public didn’t like the cost, when have the public had any say, certainly not in the Iraq/Afghan war.
Then there is Russia, they were first into space, built better space stations, experimented with the effect of long term low gravity on the human body, experimented with self-sustaining space colonies, had cheaper labour costs, an army of workers and huge secret industrial citys. Why didn’t they go to the moon, maybe because it was beyond current technology?
Very good. The shadows in all the Apollo footage are clearly produced from a distant, near point light source. I am afraid the secondary light source argument does not stand up to the scrutiny of the physics of shadows.
Of course, Moon hoax believers always figure out the way out and change their theory when convenient. There are so many versions of the same events already, that they practically debunk themselves.
Did you think about using the same model placed on 8% reflective surface to simulate famous pictures of Buzz Aldrin descending the Lunar Module ladder?
I have big plans for it including a model that is correct, including the warped shiny gold. But I need time to build the model. And the curvature of the moon surface. And time is something I do not have.
The fatness of the shadow actually took me by surprise. I did not expect this in a studio to show up because I am used to try not to have shadows in my pictures of products.
I know how you feel, plus 3d modeling can be really time consuming.
I just meant using the model you already have and placing simplified figure of an astronaut on the ladder. That would be fun to see in 3d simulation that light reflected off the surface would have been enough to illuminate the astronaut just like in the pictures of Buzz Aldrin.
What hoaxers conveniently disregard is the fact his spacesuit was perfectly clean and white at that time.
"That would be fun to see in 3d simulation that light reflected off the surface would have been enough to illuminate the astronaut just like in the pictures of Buzz Aldrin."
That is one of the ones I want to do.
But you could also use a small model and a gray surface to see for yourself. Just a cardboard and a scale model just shows it.
I know what result that would produce. Mythbusters did that already, but it won't hurt to show it again.
I will do a video with physical model in the future. Though I don't have such a nice studio as Mythbusters, I some way my experiment will be better :-)
The effect of the moon being a big reflector laying on the surface like photographers use can also be seen by pictures taken on the ISS. There Earth acts as a big reflector making the ISS images stunning beautiful.
Far from the Moon and Earth, the astronaut would be pitch black. The movie 2001 is very bad in this.
@BlisterHiker Yeah, I totally agree-as I watched this well thought out presentation it became clear that because the main focus of a hoaxers life is to be an Apollo naysayer then its logical to assume they won't ever be able to admit Apollo was real.
For them to admit Apollo was real would mean they are no longer members of a group that considers itself intelligent and extremely informed, of course the reality is a mixture of online porn, fast food and their beloved hoax theory.
I want to create a pretty accurate 3D model, this one is not accurate in my taste. It is a model taken from Celestia and I lost the colors in the model. I wanted to have the same wrinkled aluminium too.
The original plan was a movie that moved the light posts back.
I used Modo 501 with SLIK lighting set which has accurate studio light reality.
My big surprise was the fatness of the shadow in a studio.
The inverse square law of light is actually used in studio setups. By having a bright light close to the object makes that the object is exposed so brightly that you can use a higher F number like F8 or F16. The lights do bounce of the walls, but because of the high F8 number camera is never to see the walls. But the object must be relative small. Not something the size of the lunar module. And they always avoid having shadows in a studio setup.
Excellent video. It shows the difficulty in simply trying to get the LM's shadow to look correct as if the light source (the Sun) was 93 million miles away. A distant studio light creates a fairly realistic shadow, but of course the serious problem remains of grossly uneven lighting of the terrain closer to and further away from the light source. The only solution would be to move the light source much further away.
During the rendering I got in a lot of troubles. The shadow always ended up on the wall, so I had to make the studio set bigger and bigger. and to have a realistic and not fat shadow fall-off I also had move the main light very far away making the studio even bigger. But in turn your walls get to lit up.
Something I did not expect was the bright spot you notice on the wall and floor at some scenes. Just reflections of light somehow focussed because of the metallic lander.
Hey, I didn't mean to put you to a lot of extra effort, but showing the sun illumination really does round it out. I also liked your opening top-down shots. They were revealing.
This also very clearly demonstrates the fall-off effect. Except for the two or three early A-11 photos that were processed poorly, Apollo photos and videos do NOT show fall-off.
This, along with the rover analysis, makes for a total debunk of the studio arguments.
"Hey, I didn't mean to put you to a lot of extra effort,..."
I had this planned one year ago, and it is still not what I really wanted. The model is not good, I wanted t have real gold foil wrinkles because that ones clearly would expose secondary light sources if it were in a studio.
@obaeyens That's just an extra layer of icing, IMO. Your comparisons of shadows using three depths of illumination plus a sun simulation were a great demonstration of the principle. I have a tendency to try to cram too many points into one video. I think yours is simpler for hoax nuts and the uninformed to grasp. You can always make another video concentrating on the secondary reflections.
Outside light source
NASAvsPETE1 1 month ago
There is every reason to doubt the Apollo missions, firstly they appear to have been missions without a purpose. The conventional explanation is that the Apollo missions were part of a cold war space race, but as the cold war was a hoax in itself (the United States political elite helped and armed the soviets and even supplied tech to upgrade their missiles to keep the cold war illusion going) there seems no purpose to it.
fortunanike 1 year ago
@fortunanike
Even if the cold wars would be a hoax, you can't change the fact that this can simply not faked by a studio. Even with modern technologies we still can't do it. Avatar is the closest to being realistic so far.
obaeyens 1 year ago
But let’s assume there was a rational purpose, maybe a desire to achieve a permanent presence and to progress outward from there. So NASA spends a kings ransom building a missile system that seems to work, what do they do, after some missions they scrap the whole moon program. All the money, the experience gained down the toilet. The explanation? the public didn’t like the cost, when have the public had any say, certainly not in the Iraq/Afghan war.
fortunanike 1 year ago
Then there is Russia, they were first into space, built better space stations, experimented with the effect of long term low gravity on the human body, experimented with self-sustaining space colonies, had cheaper labour costs, an army of workers and huge secret industrial citys. Why didn’t they go to the moon, maybe because it was beyond current technology?
fortunanike 1 year ago
Very good. The shadows in all the Apollo footage are clearly produced from a distant, near point light source. I am afraid the secondary light source argument does not stand up to the scrutiny of the physics of shadows.
lukequixotesanjose 1 year ago
Nice presentation!
Of course, Moon hoax believers always figure out the way out and change their theory when convenient. There are so many versions of the same events already, that they practically debunk themselves.
Did you think about using the same model placed on 8% reflective surface to simulate famous pictures of Buzz Aldrin descending the Lunar Module ladder?
That could be interesting.
BlisterHiker 1 year ago
@BlisterHiker
I have big plans for it including a model that is correct, including the warped shiny gold. But I need time to build the model. And the curvature of the moon surface. And time is something I do not have.
The fatness of the shadow actually took me by surprise. I did not expect this in a studio to show up because I am used to try not to have shadows in my pictures of products.
obaeyens 1 year ago
@obaeyens
I know how you feel, plus 3d modeling can be really time consuming.
I just meant using the model you already have and placing simplified figure of an astronaut on the ladder. That would be fun to see in 3d simulation that light reflected off the surface would have been enough to illuminate the astronaut just like in the pictures of Buzz Aldrin.
What hoaxers conveniently disregard is the fact his spacesuit was perfectly clean and white at that time.
Again, nice work!
Cheers.
BlisterHiker 1 year ago
@BlisterHiker
"That would be fun to see in 3d simulation that light reflected off the surface would have been enough to illuminate the astronaut just like in the pictures of Buzz Aldrin."
That is one of the ones I want to do.
But you could also use a small model and a gray surface to see for yourself. Just a cardboard and a scale model just shows it.
obaeyens 1 year ago
"But you could also use a small model and a gray surface to see for yourself."
@obaeyens
I know what result that would produce. Mythbusters did that already, but it won't hurt to show it again.
I will do a video with physical model in the future. Though I don't have such a nice studio as Mythbusters, I some way my experiment will be better :-)
BlisterHiker 1 year ago
@BlisterHiker
The effect of the moon being a big reflector laying on the surface like photographers use can also be seen by pictures taken on the ISS. There Earth acts as a big reflector making the ISS images stunning beautiful.
Far from the Moon and Earth, the astronaut would be pitch black. The movie 2001 is very bad in this.
obaeyens 1 year ago
@BlisterHiker Yeah, I totally agree-as I watched this well thought out presentation it became clear that because the main focus of a hoaxers life is to be an Apollo naysayer then its logical to assume they won't ever be able to admit Apollo was real.
For them to admit Apollo was real would mean they are no longer members of a group that considers itself intelligent and extremely informed, of course the reality is a mixture of online porn, fast food and their beloved hoax theory.
MightySaturn5 1 year ago
"For them to admit Apollo was real would mean they are no longer members of a group that considers itself intelligent and extremely informed"
@MightySaturn5
- exactly! They have invested too much in their faith in hoax and unfortunately, most of them don't have guts to ever admit they were wrong.
BlisterHiker 1 year ago
A side by side comparison would be handy...
ytmoog 1 year ago
@ytmoog
When I find time! When I find time.
I want to create a pretty accurate 3D model, this one is not accurate in my taste. It is a model taken from Celestia and I lost the colors in the model. I wanted to have the same wrinkled aluminium too.
The original plan was a movie that moved the light posts back.
I used Modo 501 with SLIK lighting set which has accurate studio light reality.
My big surprise was the fatness of the shadow in a studio.
obaeyens 1 year ago
Good job! Together with your #1 video about the 'studio theory' this wipes out the fake lighting theories.
Rob260259 1 year ago
The inverse square law of light is actually used in studio setups. By having a bright light close to the object makes that the object is exposed so brightly that you can use a higher F number like F8 or F16. The lights do bounce of the walls, but because of the high F8 number camera is never to see the walls. But the object must be relative small. Not something the size of the lunar module. And they always avoid having shadows in a studio setup.
obaeyens 1 year ago
Very good work-my respect!
stevehislop 1 year ago
Excellent video. It shows the difficulty in simply trying to get the LM's shadow to look correct as if the light source (the Sun) was 93 million miles away. A distant studio light creates a fairly realistic shadow, but of course the serious problem remains of grossly uneven lighting of the terrain closer to and further away from the light source. The only solution would be to move the light source much further away.
GoneToPlaid 1 year ago
@GoneToPlaid
During the rendering I got in a lot of troubles. The shadow always ended up on the wall, so I had to make the studio set bigger and bigger. and to have a realistic and not fat shadow fall-off I also had move the main light very far away making the studio even bigger. But in turn your walls get to lit up.
Something I did not expect was the bright spot you notice on the wall and floor at some scenes. Just reflections of light somehow focussed because of the metallic lander.
obaeyens 1 year ago
Hey, I didn't mean to put you to a lot of extra effort, but showing the sun illumination really does round it out. I also liked your opening top-down shots. They were revealing.
This also very clearly demonstrates the fall-off effect. Except for the two or three early A-11 photos that were processed poorly, Apollo photos and videos do NOT show fall-off.
This, along with the rover analysis, makes for a total debunk of the studio arguments.
Astrobrant2 1 year ago
@Astrobrant2
"Hey, I didn't mean to put you to a lot of extra effort,..."
I had this planned one year ago, and it is still not what I really wanted. The model is not good, I wanted t have real gold foil wrinkles because that ones clearly would expose secondary light sources if it were in a studio.
obaeyens 1 year ago
@obaeyens That's just an extra layer of icing, IMO. Your comparisons of shadows using three depths of illumination plus a sun simulation were a great demonstration of the principle. I have a tendency to try to cram too many points into one video. I think yours is simpler for hoax nuts and the uninformed to grasp. You can always make another video concentrating on the secondary reflections.
Astrobrant2 1 year ago