|
Post by BertL on Aug 13, 2007 12:39:26 GMT -4
Just face it, rocky, you're the only one who thinks you are right. The readers are watching and judging. And they ALL disagree with you.
|
|
|
Post by VALIS on Aug 13, 2007 19:20:39 GMT -4
His method and computations are given in an appendix to David Percy's book Dark Moon. Percy maintains that you must buy both his book and his movie in order to understand his arguments fully. Well let's say I'm not planning any such purchases anytime soon. I based my evaluation of Groves' claim solely on the Youtube video on purpose. I could probably have tried to google something. I didn't. Rocky wanted us to make an opinion based on the video, so this is what I did. I kind of hoped it would give him a hint about the limitations of his source. Out of curiosity, does his analysis have anything to do with some kind of advanced "holographic methods" that are mentioned in the video? Or did he use photogrammetry, which I understand is based on trigonometry? Well in a way he was right, the light was about 26cm from the camera, right where you'd find Armstrong's shoulder, the white spacesuit material reflecting the bright sunlight. I can understand that he got an angle, but how did he get a distance from the boot? The way he was talking, he used only the boot. Now I know nothing about photogrammetry or holographic methods so I may be wrong but I would expect that he would need 2 clear hot spots on the same picture to get the distance. Unless he used some shadows for vanishing point analysis? But then why use the hot spot at all? In any case, as I said the video lacks too much information so I can't accept the analysis like rocky wanted me to. I need a better video!!!
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 13, 2007 20:12:50 GMT -4
I could probably have tried to google something.
Googling phrases from Groves' appendix didn't help me. The reference is Mary Bennett and David S. Percy Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers, Adventures Unlimited Press, Kempton, IL (2001) pp. 533-536.
Out of curiosity, does his analysis have anything to do with some kind of advanced "holographic methods" that are mentioned in the video?
No. The reference to "holographic methods" is an empty attempt to impress the viewer with exotic words. The method employed has nothing to do with holography.
Or did he use photogrammetry, which I understand is based on trigonometry?
He attempts photogrammetry, which uses trigonometry as well as projective geometry -- the mathematical basis for how a lens renders a three-dimensional scene into an image.
To start with, his lens model is linear, which is a special no-no for the Biogon. That is, his derivation of angular dimensions from linear dimensions in the picture plane assumes that any given linear dimension on the film corresponds to a fixed angular interval in affine (real-life) space. Now since most of the "action" here takes place near the optical axis the error would probably be minimal, but it is not accounted for in his pretense of precision.
His silence on the matter of his simplistic lens model leads me to believe he really doesn't know how to do this. If he expects his paper to be accepted by others who have any training in photogrammetric rectification then he owes us a justification for using the simple model, even if it proves suitable. In other words, he can't assume it's suitable. Science doesn't work that way.
Groves admits early on that having to work from a 70mm contact transparency limits his ability to measure what he needs. David Percy confirmed to me that Groves used that as his source material. But he handwaves away the error saying it will all come out in the wash as he can "check" his results using the curvature of the boot heel. That in turn is mostly handwaving.
I can understand that he got an angle, but how did he get a distance from the boot? The way he was talking, he used only the boot.
He says he knows the actual size of the boot in real life. Unfortunately he worked from an uncorrected photocopy of a typical boot sole, illustrated on p. 535.
He pretends to calibrate distance using the height of the heel feature -- a dimension he admits he does not know and which cannot be discerned from his photocopy. He pretends to verify that mathematically-expressed guess by estimating the width of the curved, flexible heel according to a rounded fillet feature which defies precise location in any circumstance.
Having thus miraculously and conveniently reconciled his two guesses to a very "precise" distance, he proceeds to exaggerate the precision of the other important measurement: the angle of the reflection, which he says he can fix to a tenth of a degree. Keep in mind that the entire picture he's working with is only two and a half inches across. All his other measurements were done with an ordinary millimeter-graduated ruler, so I wonder how he was able suddenly to increase his measurement precision.
In short, the analysis is fraught with questionable estimates and assumptions, unstated assumptions, and claims of precision without qualitative or quantitative basis. It appears intended simply to woo the lay reader into believing a scientist has concluded the picture is a fraud. At best it says the light source was a short distance to one side of the camera.
Of course I'm willing to discuss my analysis of the photo in public. But no one has seen hide nor hair of David Percy since about 2003. And no one has seen hide nor hair of David Groves since -- well, ever. It seems to me that one measure of the credibility of someone's argument is how willing he is to defend it publicly.
|
|
|
Post by hplasm on Aug 13, 2007 21:10:34 GMT -4
I'll also point out that not all younguns believe Apollo was hoaxed. Jason and I may not agree on much, but we're both young (too young to remember Apollo, right, Jason?), and we both know that believing it was faked is folly. I think that most young people agree with you, however based on personal observation, it is my feeling the age distribution among HBs includes a large percentage of young people that is significantly out of proportion with the general population. I think people too young to remember Apollo first hand are more prone to believe it was faked, but that doesn't mean they are likely to believe it was faked. I have faith the younger generation is generally not foolish enough to believe such nonsense. On the other hand, I fear the situation may be getting worse with each passing year. Hmm- I just had a mail from a guy called John Titor who says his kids claim the IPod (whatever that is...) is a hoax and that it would take a post fusion society to make something that complicated so simple... |-/
|
|
|
Post by VALIS on Aug 13, 2007 21:34:44 GMT -4
Thank you Jay
I hate to keep derailing, but I don't understand how one could measure the distance from the source to the boot based on the size of the boot. It seems to me that some information would be missing. Wouldn't you need to know at least the size of the source?
Or did you mean the distance between boot and camera? That I can understand. At least conceptually.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 13, 2007 22:03:20 GMT -4
Boot to camera. He doesn't attempt to find the distance from boot to light.
|
|
|
Post by VALIS on Aug 14, 2007 18:13:15 GMT -4
Ah, ok. The video was talking about a position rather than a line of sight. More unmentioned assumptions on Groves' part.
Thanks again, Jay
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 14, 2007 19:40:23 GMT -4
From information contained in the photograph, an approximation of the phase angle of the light producing the hot spot can be obtained using standard methods. That phase angle defines a line in three dimensions extending from the hot spot toward the photographer, to one side of the camera, and off into infinity. The hot-spot light source must lie along that line. Or stated another way, any light on that line will produce a substantially similar hot spot to any other line, if its size and intensity are adjusted accordingly. In fact, since Groves has no basis for narrowing the phase angle estimate in the (mostly) vertical dimension, the light will actually lie in a somewhat triangular section of a vertically-oriented plane. That is, the isoline of the heel along which the hot spot is oriented and the phase angle line define a plane. The light lies in that plane. The vertical component of the acceptable phase angles can vary substantially. We know the light cannot itself lie within the view volume (the pyramidal solid extending from the lens forward, cf. www.clavius.org/photlens.html ). So we can eliminate the portion of that plane triangle that intersects with the view volume. We know it cannot lie so far back behind the photographer that the photographer's shadow from it would be cast onto an object in the view volume. But that's a bit more difficult a distance to pin down. So we know it must lie very roughly abreast of the camera. David Groves has no basis for localizing the light source further within that truncated planar triangle. He has no basis for identifying a particular position for it relative to the camera. And yes, it is incomplete and misleading of him to imply that he can. For David Percy the approximation is sufficient. While Groves goes to lengths he cannot support, Percy requires only an illumination vector that does not correspond to the sun, the only light source he believes he must consider. Groves' paper gives him that. Percy categorically denies that any other light source is relevant, direct or indirect.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 14, 2007 21:12:11 GMT -4
And that is where he makes his major mistake, which for a studio photographer is unforgivable since they tend to use indirect lighting all the time and so have no excuse for not understanding or thinking about.
|
|
|
Post by cr on Aug 27, 2007 1:26:33 GMT -4
Hello, everyone! I've been lurking around here for close to three years now (wow, where'd the time fly away to?!), and finally decided to register. I've thought about it in the past, but didn't think I had much to add to the discussions already being had. Oh, well... here I am, officially.
Add me to the growing list of people who believe in reality, part of which includes humanity having set foot on the moon in the late 1960' & early 1970's. I've learned a lot over the years (astronomy & space exploration have always been favorite topics/hobbies), but I've learned even more lurking around here (and Clavius, BadAstronomy and other sites). Hopefully, I'll have something of value to contribute once in a while.
|
|
|
Post by trevor on Aug 27, 2007 5:02:21 GMT -4
Well I'm a big lurker, only commented a couple of times.
Well I guess I would have to say that I support Rocky, I really believe the evidence that he has presented so far. His arguments are rock solid and as far as I can tell based on heavily reasearched information.
You don't need all that science mumbo jumbo, because it is obvious just by looking at still picures and fuzzy edited video footage that the whole thing was made up.
It is no coincidence that APOLLO is an anagram of APLOOL which in turn is a cut down version of APriL fOOL.
So there you have it, it was all a joke.
So I for one (and probably only) support Rocky in his investigative undertakings to provide the truth for the April Fool Lunar Landing Hoax.
NOT!!!
Trev.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Aug 27, 2007 6:32:04 GMT -4
*Chortle!* That reminds me of a wonderful, high-energy performance of A Midsummer Night's Dream by the Shenandoah Shakespeare Express I saw several years ago. This young troop performs in street clothes, with minimal sets and with a contemporary edge. They read the line "I love thee not!" as "I love thee... NOT!"
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Aug 27, 2007 9:04:59 GMT -4
Welcome, cr, and thanks for participating in the poll!
17-0 now. Seventeen "lurkers and viewers" have "watched and judged" rocky's claims and found them without merit. But only a few have directly challenged his sanity, so I guess he can take some comfort from that.
trevor, sorry, but you are disqualified from the count because you started posting here before this thread was started. (I've been as conservative as possible in vetting "lurkers and viewers" in order to give rocky the maximum leeway. But it's still a fearful rout.) I do, however, appreciate your contributions in this thread as well as elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Aug 27, 2007 12:09:59 GMT -4
Hey everyone. I've been posting comments on YouTube HB videos for a while. I was even banned by greenmagoos, which I take as a compliment. I didn't even say anything offensive to him. I have yet to see any moon hoax claim that could not be refuted by a 10 year old.
I went looking for additional ammo and found this place. Lots of great information.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Aug 27, 2007 12:15:13 GMT -4
Hey everyone. I've been posting comments on YouTube HB videos for a while. I was even banned by greenmagoos, which I take as a compliment. I didn't even say anything offensive to him. There's no need to be offensive in order to get banned. All you have to do is refute his claims. ;D
|
|