|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 1, 2008 15:06:17 GMT -4
I think it's much more likely that what we are seeing is the reflection of the Sun and the LM.
I considered that possibility and placed it lower down the list. But after hearing your case, I'm inclined to revisit the notion and at least discuss it.
Chiefly I'm disinclined to subscribe to the LM reflection hypothesis because the LM is on the opposite side of the astronaut's visor from where I conclude it would have to be to cause the secondary bright reflection, based on its position on the reflecting visor. However upon closer inspection I don't believe there is enough resolution in the data to support that falsification conclusively. I'll try again with Mark Gray's data.
The main reflection, which is either the sun or some other bright light source, shows up on the RHS.
I agree that this is most likely the primary reflection of the sun. It is congruent with other cues determining the likely illumination angle.
The astronaut is closer to the camera, and thus the LM, in the image where the 4 smaller reflections seem to have moved away from each other, and also inceased in size. This is as you'd expect if they were reflection off the LM. The reflection of the "sun", on the other hand, doesn't increase in size, exactly what you'd expect if this was an object at infinity.
Unfortunately this is also congruent with the normal behavior of scatter-influenced reflections from convex surfaces. The scatter component shrinks as the distance between reflector and camera decreases, and without proper photogrammetric controls it can convey the impression that it has not changed size. But it will also increase the apparent separation between different reflections or interreflections. At best this is inconclusive, and this data set lacks appropriate resolution for the necessary photogrammatric controls.
My best guess is that the smaller reflection at the apex is sunlight reflected off the side of the LM ascent stage.
And to be honest I can't falsify this to an extent that would survive peer review. But to me it looks as if the reflection at upper left in the pattern (this one to which you refer) is in the right quadrant of the visor, which means the light would have to be coming from the astronaut's left: away from the LM. However, if the reflection can be located precisely and determined to be center or left-of-center on the visor, we can allow that it may be a portion of the LM reflected in the visor.
The other problem is that additional photography of the LM (e.g., AS14-66-9255) shows a dearth of surfaces on the LM that are sunlit and provide a view factor forward to the area near the MESA, where the motion picture camera is aimed.
No, I haven't ruled out entirely a reflection from the LM. But I don't have satisfactory answers yet for these questions that make it better than the the interreflection explanation.
|
|
|
Post by ews on Dec 20, 2008 19:06:59 GMT -4
I think it's much more likely that what we are seeing is the reflection of the Sun and the LM.I considered that possibility and placed it lower down the list. But after hearing your case, I'm inclined to revisit the notion and at least discuss it. Chiefly I'm disinclined to subscribe to the LM reflection hypothesis because the LM is on the opposite side of the astronaut's visor from where I conclude it would have to be to cause the secondary bright reflection, based on its position on the reflecting visor. However upon closer inspection I don't believe there is enough resolution in the data to support that falsification conclusively. I'll try again with Mark Gray's data. The main reflection, which is either the sun or some other bright light source, shows up on the RHS.I agree that this is most likely the primary reflection of the sun. It is congruent with other cues determining the likely illumination angle. The astronaut is closer to the camera, and thus the LM, in the image where the 4 smaller reflections seem to have moved away from each other, and also inceased in size. This is as you'd expect if they were reflection off the LM. The reflection of the "sun", on the other hand, doesn't increase in size, exactly what you'd expect if this was an object at infinity.Unfortunately this is also congruent with the normal behavior of scatter-influenced reflections from convex surfaces. The scatter component shrinks as the distance between reflector and camera decreases, and without proper photogrammetric controls it can convey the impression that it has not changed size. But it will also increase the apparent separation between different reflections or interreflections. At best this is inconclusive, and this data set lacks appropriate resolution for the necessary photogrammatric controls. My best guess is that the smaller reflection at the apex is sunlight reflected off the side of the LM ascent stage.And to be honest I can't falsify this to an extent that would survive peer review. But to me it looks as if the reflection at upper left in the pattern (this one to which you refer) is in the right quadrant of the visor, which means the light would have to be coming from the astronaut's left: away from the LM. However, if the reflection can be located precisely and determined to be center or left-of-center on the visor, we can allow that it may be a portion of the LM reflected in the visor. The other problem is that additional photography of the LM (e.g., AS14-66-9255) shows a dearth of surfaces on the LM that are sunlit and provide a view factor forward to the area near the MESA, where the motion picture camera is aimed. No, I haven't ruled out entirely a reflection from the LM. But I don't have satisfactory answers yet for these questions that make it better than the the interreflection explanation. The hypocrisy in you discourse is blatant. First, you stated that you did not believe that multiple objects could cause those aberrant reflections. Then you stated that since you had a “best explanation” (multiple reflections of the sun on multiple reflective layers of the visor assembly), there is little need to look for other explanations. Then you tried to force a ridiculous elaborate hoax theory out of me so that you could attack that theory instead of validating your own hypothesis. Finally, you put all this in the bin and you switch to a new mode; you accept to consider other explanations and you declare that although you don’t actually buy the multiple objects theory (in this case, the sun and components of the LEM) you are not rejecting it completely because you cannot put forward an argumentation that would resist peer review. You now open the door to a discussion about multiple objects possibly causing the aberration because the version of this hypothesis being put to the test (by postbaguk) does not threaten the reality of the Apollo missions as you conceive it. So, you open the door to the multiple object theory, but you don’t open it far enough to include objects that should not be present according to the official version (namely, other sources of light or other reflecting objects located in the axis of the alleged sun). That makes you a true ‘Apollogist’. You are not an Apollo enthusiast who is trying to honestly discuss with HBs, you are a person defending a point of view for the sole purpose of defending a version of events that should not be attacked in any way. To put it in your own favourite term, you are serving pure, 100% hogwash to this forum. To this day, you have not proposed any detailed explanation for your favoured explanation; multiple reflections of the sun on multiple layers of the visor assembly. You have not compared these particular aberrations with any other reflections that might have occurred on visors in any moon footage or pictures. You have not commented on the reflective surfaces properties, you have not commented on the size, the placement or the intensity of the reflections according to your own “best” explanation. You have basically given no evidence at all to support your view, but you have taken your multiple reflection of the sun hypothesis to the top of all possible explanation. You were actually so confident about that hypothesis at one point that you declared there was little need to look for others. I would say that any serious researcher would need to have extremely strong arguments to be so biased. Where are you arguments for multiple reflections of the sun? Basically, you never explained these aberrant reflections. You never showed how they could actually be multiple reflections of the sun. If you are capable of it, than expose your case clearly and let others decide if it does resists “peer review”. My bet is that you have no clue what those 4 aberrations are (not counting the alleged primary reflection of the sun) and that you know the sun reflecting on multiple layers of the visor assembly cannot generate such a pattern. You are a proponent of the multiple reflection of the sun hypothesis simply because you can’t allow yourself to discuss real (as apposed to the LEM reflections) alternative explanations. Why don’t you explain how all those aberrant reflections were generated in your “best” explanation scheme? I am yet to hear a convincing version of that hypothesis. I know I previously said that I was not interested in such explanations, but maybe you will succeed in making a strong case for it. If you can’t prove your hypothesis better than to claim it is the ‘best’, then it has no precedence over any other hypotheses. By the way, does the time ever come when it is your responsibility to support your own claims or do you just have to say that your hypothesis fits with the official story, so it has to be the “best”? ews
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Dec 20, 2008 19:52:12 GMT -4
Then you tried to force a ridiculous elaborate hoax theory out of me so that you could attack that theory instead of validating your own hypothesis. Have you come up with a theory in the month you've been away? Or do you still just "not believe in the reality of Apollo" and refuse to offer any alternate explanations?
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Dec 20, 2008 22:24:46 GMT -4
I guess the difference between Jay and you is that Jay isn't so stubborn as to not change his opinion/explanation as he studies a problem and more evidence points to possible alternate possibilities. Your scenario doesn't make sense because so much evidence - audio, video, photos, technology, radio transmissions and tons more tell a different story. If someone showed me a picture taken of a battle scene in WWII and asked me to explain an "anomaly" in the photo, I would look at it and try to find out what caused it. However, I would also realize others too, would offer alternate possibilities too. Would I doubt that WWII happened because I couldn't explain to someone's satisfaction that anomaly? You can't look at WWII in a vacuum, nor the Apollo Missions - you have to look at ALL the evidence for its reality. Perhaps you could explain how ALL the photos are fakes, and all the VIDEO are faked, and all the radio transmissions were faked and offer an explanation of how it was done?
|
|
|
Post by captain swoop on Dec 21, 2008 18:23:37 GMT -4
Jay isn't the one proposing anything, you are the one that came and claimed there was something wrong with the reflections. It's up to you to establish what the 'something' is.
What you are doing is shifting the burden of proof.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Dec 22, 2008 7:32:32 GMT -4
Technically, when one views the Apollo photos and videos, doesn't one see an enviroment in a vacccum? I know, lame. I find it amazing how one takes so much time to search for suppose anomolies in the Apollo images, yet they ignore other space missions. I would not be surprised that if hoax believers looked at shuttle images taken over the past 20+ years with the same mentality they apply to Apollo images, that they'd claim to see anomolies.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Dec 22, 2008 11:11:33 GMT -4
So, ews, what exactly do you claim is being reflected, and why exactly do you think it was there?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 22, 2008 12:00:07 GMT -4
The hypocrisy in you discourse is blatant.
I'm comfortable letting the reader decide which of us is out of line.
First, you stated that you did not believe that multiple objects could cause those aberrant reflections.
No, I didn't. I said it wasn't required that there be multiple objects in order to see what is seen in the visor. You came here trying to dismiss everyone here as biased and illogical, and now you have to put words in our mouths to do it.
Then you stated that since you had a “best explanation” (multiple reflections of the sun on multiple reflective layers of the visor assembly), there is little need to look for other explanations.
No. You informed us it was somehow our job to come up with additional explanations. Since the interreflection hypothesis is parsimonious and complete, I responded that no such search was necessary. The interreflection hypothesis is based on known and demonstrable physics and requires only the objects known to be present.
Finally, you put all this in the bin and you switch to a new mode; you accept to consider other explanations...
I didn't "switch to a new mode." Postbaguk presented a detailed scenario for a different hypothesis and I responded to it. That's the mode I'm always in. You receive different treatment, even in that mode, because you have nothing to offer. When you do what he did, you'll get commensurate response.
You now open the door to a discussion about multiple objects possibly causing the aberration...
That door was always open, but it requires a specific identification of the objects alleged. Postbaguk offered one specific identification, and I considered it.
...you don’t open it far enough to include objects that should not be present according to the official version (namely, other sources of light or other reflecting objects located in the axis of the alleged sun). That makes you a true ‘Apollogist’.
Hogwash. I'm willing to consider objects that "shouldn't be there," as long as you're willing to state and defend a specific explanation to that effect. But if the object(s) known to be in the scene adequately account for the observations in the photograph, then there is no need to include any others. That doesn't make me an "apollogist," it makes me a scientist.
Basically, you never explained these aberrant reflections. You never showed how they could actually be multiple reflections of the sun
Copious demonstrations of the effect were provided.
Why don’t you explain how all those aberrant reflections were generated in your “best” explanation scheme?
Shifting the burden of proof.
You asked what caused these reflections. We said interreflection among multiple reflectors and showed you examples of what we meant. You are the one demanding that there ought to be alternative explanations to consider, even some that imply extraordinary conclusions. Yet you have not provided one iota of discussion or evidence supporting any such thing.
If you believe these reflections are being caused by multiple objects, some of which "shouldn't be there," then please present your claim and give evidence in favor of it. But this passive-aggressive malarky just won't stand. You don't get to tease and bait and then call everyone else biased and unreasonable because they won't dance at the end of your string. Put up or shut up.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 22, 2008 12:15:03 GMT -4
You can't look at WWII in a vacuum, nor the Apollo Missions... I would not be surprised that if hoax believers looked at shuttle images taken over the past 20+ years with the same mentality they apply to Apollo images, that they'd claim to see anomolies. If they looked at backyard snapshops with the same mentality, they'd see "anomalies." That's the difference between the trained photographic analyst and the self-proclaimed "analysts" who go around looking for evidence of coverup on the part of evil powers: real analysts acquire an understanding of the types and amount of "anomalies" that are present in every photo. One of the fallacies of photographic interpretation is that every detail ought to be explicable. Look closely enough at any photo taken outside a studio and you'll find things you can't conclusively explain. Conspiracy theorists rely heavily on the notion that everything in a real photo ought to have an explanation. This is how they resolve ambiguity if favor of their particular theory.
|
|
|
Post by dragonblaster on Apr 12, 2009 19:22:35 GMT -4
I am the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler. It gives me no pleasure to tell you this. However, there is a photo of me that shows me with a definite Hitler moustache - proof positive. Part of me wants to say it's just a rogue shadow, but a photo is an infallible respresentation of whatever it looks like to the observer.
Excuse me. I'm just off to my bunker to shoot myself. When I can find the secret entrance and the Luger, that is.
|
|
|
Post by pzkpfw on Apr 13, 2009 21:29:13 GMT -4
If they looked at backyard snapshops with the same mentality, they'd see "anomalies."... "Orbs". (Dust spec versus their dead <name of relative or pet>.)
|
|
|
Post by dragonblaster on Apr 14, 2009 15:27:49 GMT -4
Don't forget the ubiquitous alien rods... cunning little bastards.
|
|
|
Post by fiveonit on Apr 16, 2009 11:30:59 GMT -4
|
|