|
Post by margamatix on Aug 20, 2005 9:41:15 GMT -4
I wonder if somebody could explain to me why the foreground of this photograph is brightly lit whereas the background is in complete darkness? A spokesman for Hasselblad, who made the camera, stated that it appeared that Buzz Aldrin was standing in a spotlight. Is this so? If not, why is there such a difference on the level of light between the foreground and background? Surely if the moon was lit solely by the sun, the lighting levels would be constant across the moon's surface?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 20, 2005 10:26:45 GMT -4
Sigh, the latest abrupt change of subject. I wonder if somebody could explain to me why the foreground of this photograph is brightly lit whereas the background is in complete darkness?A combination of curvature and the up-sun phase effect -- perfectly expected. The foreground, first of all, is composed in large part of the patch of ground swept clean by the descent engine. Not all the ground looked like that. It appears somewhat brighter because the texture has been smoothed there. Further, your photo crops the real foreground, which has many footprints in it and is noticeably darker than directly behind Aldrin. The phase-angle portion of the effect is caused by looking at texture elements from their shaded side. Keep in mind this photo was taken looking roughly in the direction of the sun. Especially at low sun angles, textured surfaces create shade on the down-sun sides of the texture elements, and the elements themselves cast shadows. The angle at which you view a textured surface under those lighting conditions greatly affects how you perceive the brightness of the surface. If you're on the down-sun side looking up-sun, you see chiefly the shaded side of the texture, and the shadows cast by the texture. This gives the overall impression of a darker surface when seen at the macro scale. If you're on the up-sun side looking down-sun, you see primarily the lit side of the texture elements, and the elements themselves hide their shadows. This gives the overall impression of a very bright surface. It also tends to "erase" the texture, since shade and shadow are the primary means by which the eye perceives contour. For foreground texture, the photographer is looking at the surface more directly -- i.e., closer to a perpendicular angle. That means he is looking "over the top" of the texture and seeing more of the sunlit surface behind it. The overall effect is of a brighter surface. For background texture, the photographer is looking at the surface at a lower, more oblique angle. That means he is looking at more of the upraised portions of the texture and cannot see the lit surface behind it. The overall effect is of a darker surface. Here are some phase-angle examples: These two photographs are taken of exactly the same patch of ground at the same time of day, with exactly the same camera settings, but from two different angles. The up-sun photo (top) shows texture shading effects and has an overall darker appearance. The down-sun photo (bottom) shows how phase angle (the difference between the view angle and the lighting angle) "hides" the texture and gives the impression of a bright, textureless surface. Here I've changed the phase angle by changing azimuth, i.e., walking around to a different light of sight. I can also change the phase angle by getting up on a ladder and looking more directly downward, or by getting down on my stomach and shooting from a low angle. Phase angle is an angle in three-dimensional space. The amount and scale of the texture affects this phenomenon. That is why it is important to know that the DPS engine "swept" the surface behind Aldrin on the descent. Smoother ground appears brighter But there is also natural variation in texture across the lunar surface. Now the moon is smaller than Earth, which means the ground curves downward toward the horizon more abruptly. That curvature decreases the angle at which the surface is viewed, amplifying the texture-hiding effect. Further -- although this may not be relevant -- many of the smaller digital versions of the Apollo photographs were hurriedly scanned to be used as thumbnails, and many are darker than they actually appear in prints or on the original transparency. A spokesman for Hasselblad, who made the camera, stated that it appeared that Buzz Aldrin was standing in a spotlight. Is this so?No. Jan Lundberg is not a "spokesman" for Hasselblad. He was one of the project mechanical engineers for the Apollo camera, and was simply the person selected by David Percy and Mary Bennett as the only person they would consult for all questions relating to the camera, film lighting, and all lunar surface photography operations. Any question he answered incorrectly, or could not answer, was thus inappropriately deemed "suspicious". Lundberg was asked if he could explain the bright spot behind Aldrin. He could not. From that, Bennett and Percy concluded themselves that a spotlight "must" have been used, since the manufacturer of the camera could not account for it with natural light. The inability of a mechanical engineer to answer a photographic lighting question is not suspicious. And Lundberg did not confirm that a spotlight was used. The "single source" tactic is well-used in conspiracy theories. That's where you get exactly one expert and ask him all the questions. Any question that the single expert can't answer is deemed suspiciously unanswerable (i.e., "Experts are stumped...") even if it has nothing to do with his actual field of expertise. Any physicist or lighting designer can explain what's going on in that picture. Surely if the moon was lit solely by the sun, the lighting levels would be constant across the moon's surface?Who told you that? That's complete hogwash. Textured, contoured surfaces never exhibit uniform illumination under any lighting condition except total darkness.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Aug 20, 2005 10:34:16 GMT -4
Looking at a direct from 1st generation scan over at www.apolloarchive.com (In Apollo 11 pt2 section) the effect is not nearly as pronounced as in the above print. The first casualty of an nth generation print is increase in contrast. That is the dark parts look darker and the white parts look brighter with little middle ground greys. (This is why multi generational 16mm prints of films look atrocious compared to an original from-the-negative produced print - the best example I had of this was comparing a multi-generational copy of Metropolis to the recently remastered and restored DVD print). There is also the effect of reflections from the lunar surface, of which I am not well versed, Jay is the man to explain the "spotlight" effect. However, I recall in 1978 my father photographed some models in braod daylight which all exhibited the same type of effect, although absolutely no mattes or filters were used. I still have the pics, but they are in Australia, and I am in Germany, so that will have to wait. Cheers, Dwight ps Just as I wrote this response Jay posted his, so please see above for the full explanation.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 20, 2005 11:01:20 GMT -4
margamatix, how about you go back over a few of the older threads you have started and either knowledge that your questions were answered satisfactorally, or explain why they haven't been. Starting a thread and then abandoning it and going off to start a new one is a tactic that is usually considered trolling. If you have abandoned the thread because your question was answered, then it'd be nice to let us know, otherwise we are just going to assume that you are topic hopping to avoid responding to our answers.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 20, 2005 11:10:37 GMT -4
Surely if the moon was lit solely by the sun, the lighting levels would be constant across the moon's surface?Who told you that? That's complete hogwash. Textured, contoured surfaces never exhibit uniform illumination under any lighting condition except total darkness. It's not just the moon either. Look out your window during the day and tell me that that the scene you see is perfectly uniformly lit. Unless you live on a perfectly flat plain, I'm not going to belive you.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 20, 2005 11:11:23 GMT -4
I agree with PhantomWolf. Margamatix, it's to your best interest to stick to one or two lines of reasoning until they are fully developed. When you jump from subject to subject without seeing it through, you give the impression that you're just trying to throw a whole bunch of mud against the wall to see if any of it sticks. That's a sign of desperation to be believed, not a sign of careful consideration of the facts.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 20, 2005 11:25:02 GMT -4
So what you are saying is that we should start a thread on one subject, and should not discuss any other aspect of the moon landings until we have unanimous agreement on that subject one way or another?
Get real.
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Aug 20, 2005 11:37:12 GMT -4
Any physicist or lighting designer can explain what's going on in that picture. Maybe not any physicist. This physicist wouldn't have been able to explain...*cough* *cough*
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Aug 20, 2005 11:41:12 GMT -4
So what you are saying is that we should start a thread on one subject, and should not discuss any other aspect of the moon landings until we have unanimous agreement on that subject one way or another? What we observe from the threads you started, is that when the discussion doesn't go the way you wanted, you leave the thread and start another one on another subject. This behavior is not consistent with somebody who wants the answers to his questions. If you really are interested in our answers, you should stick to a couple of threads at a time, before changing the subject.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 20, 2005 11:47:23 GMT -4
Whenever a thread starts to go badly for you, you abandon it and start a new one. You're just looking for the quick "win", not for any meaningful examination of your claims. If you were truly interested in the nature of your claims instead of just the appearance of victory, you would be able to acknowledge, either to concede or to refute, someone else's argument. But when you just wander off, it raises the question of whether it's really worth it to talk to you.
Your habit of topic-hopping also confirms the notion that you aren't really employing any original thought here. You're simply repeating the claims of various other people without thinking about them yourself. So when we provide the answers, and you go back to your original sources and see that they don't provide any rejoinders to those answers, you're totally lost. You have nothing else to say, and so you move on to the next conclusion that was spoon-fed to you. If, on the other hand, you had actually thought about what you've been told to believe by these authors, you would be able to use your original thoughts to extend them and continue the discussion.
In other words, give us a good reason why ignoring you wouldn't be just as effective as talking to you.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 20, 2005 12:10:47 GMT -4
In other words, give us a good reason why ignoring you wouldn't be just as effective as talking to you. Feel free to ignore me- nobody forces you to do anything else. In the first thread I ever posted, I pointed out that a human being would be able to step further and jump higher on the moon than he would on Earth. Other users then posted a stream of nonsense purporting to explain why this would not be so. I tried to explain it again, then again, and then I simply gave up- what else can I do? I then posted a link to a video showing an astronaut being jerked upwards on a wire. Again, users tried one evasion after the next, citing poor compression (irrelevant) and then lack of sound- as if this would make any difference whatsoever to the visual aspect of this blatantly and poorly hoaxed footage. So I gave up. What else can I do? No doubt I will give up on this too- Buzz Aldrin is clearly standing in artificial light on a relatively flat surface which would not produce the variation in lighting which you suggest, but for whatever reason you refuse to see it. I am asking legitimate questions here, and I am doing so politely and reasonably. If you don't like what I post, then I respectfully suggest that you simply ignore it.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 20, 2005 12:36:41 GMT -4
In other words, give us a good reason why ignoring you wouldn't be just as effective as talking to you. Feel free to ignore me- nobody forces you to do anything else. In the first thread I ever posted, I pointed out that a human being would be able to step further and jump higher on the moon than he would on Earth. Other users then posted a stream of nonsense purporting to explain why this would not be so. I tried to explain it again, then again, and then I simply gave up- what else can I do? You had it explained to you that just because they -could- do it, they didn't -have- to do it. You were told that the suits were oddly balanced and that most felt that jumping about could have resulted in them falling and injurying themselves. You also had several examples where they did do some high jumps given too you. Which bit of those things do you consider nonsense? I then posted a link to a video showing an astronaut being jerked upwards on a wire. Again, users tried one evasion after the next, citing poor compression (irrelevant) and then lack of sound- as if this would make any difference whatsoever to the visual aspect of this blatantly and poorly hoaxed footage. You pointed to a very poor quality version of a few seconds yet you claim that a clip which has a) better quality visuals, b) a sound track that has the astronauts describing exactly what they are doing, and c) is far longer clip including them moving well away from the area that the so called "jerk" was done without the removal of any wires wouldn't make a difference? Also, what is your evidence, aside from the motion itself, that there is a wire? So I gave up. What else can I do? No doubt I will give up on this too- Buzz Aldrin is clearly standing in artificial light on a relatively flat surface which would not produce the variation in lighting which you suggest, but for whatever reason you refuse to see it. What makes you think he is standing on a relatively flat area of ground? Do you realise he is actually standing in a crater? Have you looked at how rough and rocky the lunar surface is? Explain how the area in front of Buzz is not in your so called "spotlight" but his shadow is cast by it? Explain why there aren't mutliple shadows from multiple lights is a spot light is used for him and other lights for the ather areas. Explain how artifical light could create these effects. I am asking legitimate questions here, and I am doing so politely and reasonably. If you don't like what I post, then I respectfully suggest that you simply ignore it. It's not a case of asking politely or not, it's a case of not answering the responses or when you do, instead of showing why you think our answers are wrong, you simply restate your original conclusions. You even just did that in this thread. Instead of providing evidence that the surface is flat (it's not) and that there's a spotlight (there's not) you just as "it's obvious" as if that will win your entire argument. When it's pointed out that it's not obvious and why you are wrong, you just put your fingers in your ears and start a new topic. We want to see you actually provide something more substancial than "It's obvious" and "because."
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 20, 2005 12:41:15 GMT -4
Feel free to ignore me- nobody forces you to do anything else.
Feel free to stop posting. Nobody forces you to do that either.
However, you started out your post by saying, "Can someone please explain to me..." Clearly you do expect people to respond to you. In light of your past behavior whereby you solicit feedback and then ignore it, why should anyone pay attention to you?
In the first thread I ever posted, I pointed out that a human being would be able to step further and jump higher on the moon than he would on Earth. Other users then posted a stream of nonsense purporting to explain why this would not be so.
If you believe it is nonsense then you bear the responsibility to explain to us why it's nonsense. simply declaring it to be so is pure evasion. An expression of disbelief is not a refutation.
I tried to explain it again, then again, and then I simply gave up
All you did is to repeat your original claim. Repeating a refuted claim is useless. You have to answer the explanation that was given, with something more substantial than simply your unwillingness to believe it.
what else can I do?
Obviously nothing. That's the problem. You can't deal with refutations to your claims, so you give up. As I said, I believe that this is because you are simply copying others' arguments without expending any thought yourself toward them.
I then posted a link to a video showing an astronaut being jerked upwards on a wire.
No. You posted a video of an astronaut doing something you couldn't immediately explain in ordinary terms. You showed absolutely no evidence of the wire you say was there. The wire was your hypothesis to explain the motion. You seem not to know the difference between hypothesis and fact.
Again, users tried one evasion after the next, citing poor compression (irrelevant)...
Not irrelevant. You never examined the better video, so you aren't in a position to tell anybody whether compression was a factor. Your wire hypothesis was based on the notion that you couldn't see any other means of support in your video. In fact, the better video clearly showed what the astronaut was using for support.
and then lack of sound- as if this would make any difference whatsoever to the visual aspect...
Again, not irrelevant. The dialogue explicitly describes what's going on in the video and precisely how the astronaut proposes to get to his feet.
So I gave up. What else can I do?
Again, nothing -- because you don't employ any original thought to your conclusions. You simply repeat what you've been told to believe. And when reasons are given why it's not factually tenable belief, you run away. You are clearly afraid of evidence that contradicts your conclusion.
No doubt I will give up on this too- Buzz Aldrin is clearly standing in artificial light...
No. Because your authors set up simplistic expectations, they cry "anomaly" whenever something happens that fails those expectations. The problem is with the expectations, not with the evidence. There is no evidence of artificial light in that image. The conclusion that an artificial light "must" have been used is an unproven hypothesis arising out of simplistic claim of anomaly.
on a relatively flat surface...
No. There are many photographs of that terrain, including some from which stereograms can be made. The ground is not flat.
which would not produce the variation in lighting which you suggest...
False. You completely ignore the issue of varying texture.
but for whatever reason you refuse to see it.
No, not for "whatever" reason -- for reasons of sound physics and optics, in which I am well versed. My understanding of these principles is sufficient to be able to demonstrate similar variances on demand using only natural light and happenstance textures.
Just because you and your authors don't understand how natural phenomena can produce these effects doesn't mean it's a total mystery to everyone.
I am asking legitimate questions here, and I am doing so politely and reasonably.
No. Your questions are not legitimate -- you are simply unthinkingly parrotting what someone else has told you to ask.
And you are not doing so politely or reasonably. Polite and reasonable discussion does not flit from topic to topic but acknowledges the merits of the refutations. You simply repeat the same old claims over and over no matter what is said in response.
If you don't like what I post, then I respectfully suggest that you simply ignore it.
If you don't intend actually to listen to what is said in response to your requests for comments, then I respectfully suggest you stop posting. It is consummately rude to ask for input and then to ignore it.
|
|
|
Post by skinbath on Aug 20, 2005 12:55:56 GMT -4
margamatix;You`re interpretation as to what has been taking place in your threads is as invalid and ill argued as the unsupported and laughable hoax theories you believe in.You`ve not argued a single point but repeated opinions in a childlike manner.You may have removed you last signature but you`re plainly still in dreamland. ;D
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Aug 20, 2005 13:21:59 GMT -4
The livingroom carpet in my parents old house used to display the same effect. It would reflect light differently in patches depending one which way each individual piece of carpet was leaning. If you vacuumed it in one direction it would appear darker than if you vacuumed in the other direction. It used to bother my mother that there would be bright patches and dark patches... she wanted all of the carpet to look the same. You can see the same thing on baseball fields when they cut fancy patterns into the grass.
|
|