|
|
Post by craiglamson on Mar 14, 2008 12:47:24 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Mar 14, 2008 13:10:37 GMT -4
What's the context of those two images, Craig?
|
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Mar 14, 2008 13:15:01 GMT -4
Are they somehow related to the Apollo hoax theory?
|
|
|
|
Post by craiglamson on Mar 14, 2008 13:16:21 GMT -4
Duane claims that the uv camera in the apollo 16 photos had to be illuminated by second light because it was in the shadow of the LM.
He claims that it could not have been illuminated by the reflection of the lunar surface which he claims is as dark as asphalt.
The front of my truck is in full shadow, and is sitting on dark asphalt. The grill and bumper show thee reflection of the dark asphalt, both in and out of shadow and the sky. That is what "illuminates" them.
|
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Mar 14, 2008 13:43:55 GMT -4
The only added illumination is that of the blue sky, which Dwane will no doupt point to as the main reason that the front of the vehicle is visible.
Maybe a backlit night shot?
|
|
|
|
Post by craiglamson on Mar 14, 2008 13:51:47 GMT -4
The only added illumination is that of the blue sky, which Dwane will no doupt point to as the main reason that the front of the vehicle is visible. Maybe a backlit night shot? He might point it out but he would fail again. Look at second photo, the one where the truck is in the shadow of the building. On the left side of the bumper you can see the part of the asphalt that is in shadow, which shows up dark in the bumper reflection and the part of the asphalt that is in full sun which shows up much lihgter in the bumper reflection. The difference in the tone of the reflection in the bumper is not due to the lightt of the blue sky, but rather the differences in illumination falling on the asphalt. These photos are a perfect example of the old photographers axiom that when you photograph shiny objects, you don't photograph the object, you photograph what refects in the object. |
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Mar 14, 2008 15:36:42 GMT -4
Duane claims that the uv camera in the apollo 16 photos had to be illuminated by second light because it was in the shadow of the LM. He claims that it could not have been illuminated by the reflection of the lunar surface which he claims is as dark as asphalt. The front of my truck is in full shadow, and is sitting on dark asphalt. The grill and bumper show thee reflection of the dark asphalt, both in and out of shadow and the sky. That is what "illuminates" them. Here is a sequence of photos by Pericynthion at the UM forum that is a great illustration of how dark asphalt can illuminate a subject: www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=113834&view=findpost&p=1971932The front of the "LM" is being illuminated ONLY by reflected light from a dark asphalt driveway, which itself is being illuminated only by a single 50w halogen bulb. Edited to add: Quote Pericynthion: For the record, Turbonium completely ignored Pericynthion's question. |
|
|
|
Post by craiglamson on Mar 14, 2008 15:51:57 GMT -4
Thats a good example. It's amazing that the never even try any of these experiments. Fear of failure I guess.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 14, 2008 15:58:20 GMT -4
Won't a real hoax believer just argue that your photos were made in an atmosphere, and that the atmosphere "spreads" the light into the shadows in a way that wouldn't be possible in a vacuum?
I believe I've seen that argument before.
|
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 14, 2008 16:17:02 GMT -4
I need to dig up some of the first photographs I took as proofs. They are taken inside my garage, the interior of which is lit only by sunlight reflected off my asphalt pavement. Because I'm inside the garage structure with no view factor to the sky, the scatter from the atmosphere does not contribute to the lighting solution. The notion that sunlight reflected from asphalt is not strong enough to affect photography is empirically dismissable hogwash.
|
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 14, 2008 16:28:46 GMT -4
I should also point out that I did a similar experiment on TV in the desert. We showed that the desert floor reflects light upward from either side of a shadow, partially illuminating the shaded side of the shadow-caster. We also showed how this level of illumination was proportional to the height of the object above the desert floor. And since it was nighttime, sunlight scattered through air was irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Mar 14, 2008 16:46:53 GMT -4
Thats a good example. It's amazing that the never even try any of these experiments. Fear of failure I guess. Exactly! As you know, I continually harp on about people recreating scenes in order to observe the results. I have said the same thing to Duane and others numerous times. Duane, for whatever reasons, always failed to do so. This applies particularly - as you well know - to Jack White's Apollo photographic claims, especially those where he claims a certain thing is impossible. Jack will never admit he is wrong, but those conducting the simulation can satisfy themselves as to what is correct and what is not. Well done, Peri! |
|
|
|
Post by craiglamson on Mar 14, 2008 17:02:20 GMT -4
Won't a real hoax believer just argue that your photos were made in an atmosphere, and that the atmosphere "spreads" the light into the shadows in a way that wouldn't be possible in a vacuum? I believe I've seen that argument before. I'm sure he will, but the corner of the bumper that shows dark and light due to the asphalt being in sun and in shade kills that argument. Besides I did the experiment as requested by Duane. Duane can't understand angle of incidence. He can't understand the power of reflected light, he can't understand quality of light, and he can't understand the process of creating a photograph of a very reflective object. In a discussion about photographic lighting, Duane is left standing alone in the dark. |
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 14, 2008 17:13:59 GMT -4
In a discussion about photographic lighting, Duane is left standing alone in the dark.
And not in the classy low-key film-noir style.
The specularity of the bumper answers the scatter question too. Light arriving from some spot on the bumper derives from some specific incident angle. Portions of the lower curve of the bumper reflect the image of the shadowed asphalt. "Reflects the image" is another way of saying "receives light only from it." Sunlighted scattered and diffused in the air may strike the lower curve of the bumper, but because of specularity it will be reflected in some other direction and not toward the camera.
|
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Mar 14, 2008 17:57:10 GMT -4
The standard claim that "the moon is as dark as asphalt" is one that I've come up against time and time again. The moon receives something like 13,000 footcandles from the sun, and with an albedo of 0.12, an enormous amount of light is being reflected from the surface into the shaded areas.
Photography seems to be too complicated for the average hoaxer. I don't say this just to be demeaning -- I really believe that it is true.
|
|
