4 ms·

Not to feed the conspiracy nuts...but why are the shadows on the left and right of the shot being cast in different directions?

Renaud 14y ago
Because its a panorama taken of multiple shots that span a very wide area of whole scene, almost making the resulting shot a 360° view.
caf 14y ago
"This sharp panorama is digitally stitched together from pictures taken by Cernan as he and Schmitt roamed the valley floor."
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
icegreentea 14y ago
Well, it's a panorama. If the light source (sun) is located in the 'missing' portion of the panorama, then you would expect the different shadows on either side of the missing bit. This is consistent with the apparent shadow under the buggy. Here's a terrestrial example of the madness that happens to shadows (and geometry in general)with panoramas. It's partly less obvious on the moon since it lacks familiar references. [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bundeena-pier-360-panorama-NSW-Australia.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bundeena-pier-360-pan...]
- andrewfelix 14y ago
  Great reference shot. Thanks.
ricardobeat 14y ago
Many features in moon photographs are bizarre, I don't blame the nuts too much... In this crop from a panorama, for example, the rover seems completely out of proportion, like a miniature: http://cl.ly/3M0v0S3R2M2N3h180Q1W http://cl.ly/3M0v0S3R2M2N3h180Q1W Compare the size of the footprint and the stones in the left side, to the stones near the rover. Either the moon has some weird rock distributions, the image is highly deformed, or this is a fake :) The fact that for multiple generations we haven't been up there again just contributes to the idea.
- zerohp 14y ago
  That photo is obviously a composite of multiple shots. You see strange deformations like that all the time in composite shots. If we apply Occam's razor, the simplest explanation is that they went to the moon. Over 350,000 people were involved at a total cost of $140 billion of todays dollars. I've never heard anyone deny that we had the capability to land on the moon. The rockets, vehicles and astronauts were all real. The evidence is too monumental. For the moon landings to be a hoax, it would require everything that it takes to complete the mission and an extra group of people to do all the work of faking it.
  - buyx 14y ago
    Agreed. People seem to overestimate the power of the government to fake things. If it was that easy to pull off a hoax of that magnitude, it is quite likely that WMDs would have been "found" in Iraq after the invasion.
- dredmorbius 14y ago
  A few factors contribute to that photo's impression. Aside from being a composite: - There's no atmosphere on the moon. Which means there's no distance haze. Far objects are just as sharp as near ones. - There are no reference points to indicate scale. This is fairly common in terrestrial photos of barren landscapes, especially Alpine, Arctic, or glacial photos. In this image of a Pakistani landslide, note the apparently diminuitive size of the earth moving equipment and background figures: http://blogs.agu.org/landslideblog/files/2012/04/12_04-Siachen-2.jpg http://blogs.agu.org/landslideblog/files/2012/04/12_04-Siach...
  - ricardobeat 14y ago
    Agreed, but the rocks should serve as a good enough reference. The effect on that moon shot would require rock sizes to increase almost linearly with distance - rocks are a foot wide near the camera but half-meter wide afar - which is extremely odd. (of course I believe that to be an artifact of image stitching and perspective corrections, what I meant is that it's easy to misinterpret these oddities)
tintin 14y ago
Most of the pictures are taken with a lot of light (flashlight?) coming out of the camera direction. This picture for example shows it very clear: http://astropedia.astrogeology.usgs.gov/alfresco/d/d/workspace/SpacesStore/a858577a-6350-4a45-87cc-1d32e064611a/AP12pan.jpg http://astropedia.astrogeology.usgs.gov/alfresco/d/d/workspa... So there is light from the sun, camera and even earth maybe.

Renaud 14y ago

Because its a panorama taken of multiple shots that span a very wide area of whole scene, almost making the resulting shot a 360° view.

caf 14y ago

"This sharp panorama is digitally stitched together from pictures taken by Cernan as he and Schmitt roamed the valley floor."

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

icegreentea 14y ago

Well, it's a panorama. If the light source (sun) is located in the 'missing' portion of the panorama, then you would expect the different shadows on either side of the missing bit. This is consistent with the apparent shadow under the buggy. Here's a terrestrial example of the madness that happens to shadows (and geometry in general)with panoramas. It's partly less obvious on the moon since it lacks familiar references. [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bundeena-pier-360-panorama-NSW-Australia.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bundeena-pier-360-pan...]

andrewfelix 14y ago
Great reference shot. Thanks.

ricardobeat 14y ago

Many features in moon photographs are bizarre, I don't blame the nuts too much... In this crop from a panorama, for example, the rover seems completely out of proportion, like a miniature: http://cl.ly/3M0v0S3R2M2N3h180Q1W http://cl.ly/3M0v0S3R2M2N3h180Q1W Compare the size of the footprint and the stones in the left side, to the stones near the rover. Either the moon has some weird rock distributions, the image is highly deformed, or this is a fake :) The fact that for multiple generations we haven't been up there again just contributes to the idea.

zerohp 14y ago
That photo is obviously a composite of multiple shots. You see strange deformations like that all the time in composite shots. If we apply Occam's razor, the simplest explanation is that they went to the moon. Over 350,000 people were involved at a total cost of $140 billion of todays dollars. I've never heard anyone deny that we had the capability to land on the moon. The rockets, vehicles and astronauts were all real. The evidence is too monumental. For the moon landings to be a hoax, it would require everything that it takes to complete the mission and an extra group of people to do all the work of faking it.
- buyx 14y ago
  Agreed. People seem to overestimate the power of the government to fake things. If it was that easy to pull off a hoax of that magnitude, it is quite likely that WMDs would have been "found" in Iraq after the invasion.
dredmorbius 14y ago
A few factors contribute to that photo's impression. Aside from being a composite: - There's no atmosphere on the moon. Which means there's no distance haze. Far objects are just as sharp as near ones. - There are no reference points to indicate scale. This is fairly common in terrestrial photos of barren landscapes, especially Alpine, Arctic, or glacial photos. In this image of a Pakistani landslide, note the apparently diminuitive size of the earth moving equipment and background figures: http://blogs.agu.org/landslideblog/files/2012/04/12_04-Siachen-2.jpg http://blogs.agu.org/landslideblog/files/2012/04/12_04-Siach...
- ricardobeat 14y ago
  Agreed, but the rocks should serve as a good enough reference. The effect on that moon shot would require rock sizes to increase almost linearly with distance - rocks are a foot wide near the camera but half-meter wide afar - which is extremely odd. (of course I believe that to be an artifact of image stitching and perspective corrections, what I meant is that it's easy to misinterpret these oddities)

tintin 14y ago

Most of the pictures are taken with a lot of light (flashlight?) coming out of the camera direction. This picture for example shows it very clear: http://astropedia.astrogeology.usgs.gov/alfresco/d/d/workspace/SpacesStore/a858577a-6350-4a45-87cc-1d32e064611a/AP12pan.jpg http://astropedia.astrogeology.usgs.gov/alfresco/d/d/workspa... So there is light from the sun, camera and even earth maybe.