Hot spot on Aldrin's boot

[HeadLikeARock (was postbaguk)]

The authors of "What Happened on the Moon" (WHOTM) claim that Dr David Groves, of Quantech Image Processing, has technology that can pinpoint the exact location of the lightsource reflected in Aldrin's boot as he exits the LM.

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1913474363747128107

Specifically, the section running from 33:02 to 37:00.

Here is the still photo in question...

www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5866.jpg

David Groves calculates that the source of the light reflected in the heel of Aldrin's right boot is located 24-36cm to the right of the camera.

Does it make more sense that this highlight is actually light reflected from the part of Armstrong's spacesuit that was illuminated when he was taking the photographs, which was indeed to the right of the camera? Here is a crop I've taken from the TV footage of Armstrong watching Aldrin exit the LM.



I'd be interested in hearing anyone else's opinion of this. The rest of WHOTM up until this point is easily refutable, but I like to have any knowledge gaps filled in. All it takes is one piece of "evidence" from HBers that goes "un-debunked", and that is sufficient proof that NASA lied, and cannot be trusted.

(Incidentally, the TV image I've cropped above was just a "print screen" from a section on WHOTM... checking the TV footage on the NASA site shows that Armstrong was probably a little further to the left in the image as the photo was taken).

[gwiz]

That's amazing. A piece of research by an HB that actually hangs together. As Groves gives a 12 cm error band, and as a suit shoulder should be at least 25 cm to the right of the camera, I think you have a match.

Is the bright spot on the LM leg just below the boot also a reflection of Armstrong?

[ajv]

Does it make more sense that this highlight is actually light reflected from the part of Armstrong's spacesuit that was illuminated when he was taking the photographs

This is clavius.org's conclusion too. I think a TV frame would be a very nice addition to clavius's argument.

[tikkitakki]

This confirms an artificial light source - the suit is definitely artificial. ;D

[JayUtah]

Yes I strongly believe the light source producing the highlight on the boot is Neil Armstrong's space suit. Dr. Groves exaggerates the precision by which he was able to measure the location of the hot spot. It would have amounted to essentially finer than the film resolution. But he does this in order to exaggerate the precision by which he is able to estimate and localize the position of the light source, suggesting that it would be farther to the side and smaller.

[Jason Thompson]

Dr. Groves exaggerates the precision by which he was able to measure the location of the hot spot.

Specifically, havig checked my copy of Dark Moon, he gives the location as a distance from other points on the picture in millimetres precise to two decimal places. I have a hard time believing he could measure anything to within ten microns, especially as he declines to tell the reader how he measures it.

But later on they give locations for the face on Mars in degrees, minutes and seconds (actually they give one set of co-ordinates in seconds and one in minutes to make their numerology work) which actually turns out to be precise to within less than one millimetre when scaled up to the full size of the mesa. Yes, that's right, they locate an object a couple of kilometres across to that degree of precision from a low res image where one pixel represents several metres!

Lesson: alarm bells should start ringing when a) confronted with several decimal figures, and b) not given any information about how the measurements were obtained.

[Jason Thompson]

Further, I just watched the Apollo 12 video footage. Because the camera failed as it was being moved from the MESA, the only existing footage has the landing strut with the ladder in fram the entire time. It is quite clear in several instances how the light changes with the atsronuts' movements. As they move into and out of frame you can often see the strut become more strongly illuminated by reflection from the bright white spacesuits.

[scooter]

Dr David Groves has some credibility issues. He quietly goes on about the famous Aldrin photo, how the center crosshair isn't in the center of the picture. My first thought was that this is a cropped photo (it very obviously is not the original, nor a decent facsimile thereof).
A quick check showed this to be the case, and in the original, Aldrin is off center to the top, and the center reticle is indeed in the center.
I would ask two questions...a) why did Percy and Bennett feel the need to misrepresent this picture so glaringly, and b) Why didn't Dr Groves figure this out immediately (as I, with no photo analysis training, did)?

[Jason Thompson]

The number of obvious analytical flaws and simple errors in Dark Moon, the poor research skills demonstrated, and the behaviour of the authors when questioned about it has led more than one of us to the conclusion that Bennett and Percy know damn well they are selling bull and are out to make a quick buck from the gullible.

[HeadLikeARock (was postbaguk)]

jasonthompson said:

The number of obvious analytical flaws and simple errors in Dark Moon, the poor research skills demonstrated, and the behaviour of the authors when questioned about it has led more than one of us to the conclusion that Bennett and Percy know damn well they are selling bull and are out to make a quick buck from the gullible.

Exactly what my correspondence with the Aulis website, and Jack White directly, confirm. Not interested in hearing what they must know to be the truth... only interested in parting fools with their cash. OK, maybe the term "fools" is a little harsh...

Don't want any "fools" suing me!

[nomuse]

I think there's something a little more subtle going on. Sorry to drag the subject further from Aldrin's boot, but...!

The people I run into with pseudo-scientific or conspiracy beliefs seem to approach them more in the style of visiting a haunted house or telling ghost stories; it is in the spirit of entertainment.

I personally find this attitude infuriating. It is one thing to clown around at the Oregon Vortex and laughingly pretend that there really are mysterious energy fields and warpages of space there. It is quite another to pretend that a misunderstanding of the technical accomplishments, personal heroism, and actual science of Apollo, is a diverting but ultimately meaningless amusement.

The former costs you eight bucks and you get a funhouse ride out of it anyhow. The latter allows you to lie to yourself that understanding how the world actually works and what real science is, is not particularly important -- and this allows you to go on to skip math classes, vote randomly on science-based issues, and waste money (and possibly health!) buying quackery like carburetor enhancers and magnetic bracelets.

[JayUtah]

I personally don't view conspiracism as a harmless activity.

Conspiracy theorists seem to care little for the personal reputations they trample in their mad rush for personal notoriety. They seem to have no problem calling famous people liars, but they don't realize there are "little people" -- the rank and file workers at NASA, NIST, and FDNY -- whose reputations are tarnished by credibility in these theories.

Were I a callous jerk I would consider the expenditure of one's means on do-nothing claims to be just desserts for the lack of critical thinking and education. However it takes two to tango. For every buyer of magnetic bracelets there is a seller who likely knows his product does nothing and who simply doesn't care. This may not mean much when we're talking about meaningless trinkets, but there are more egregious "magnetic bracelets" out there -- a group down in the American south who was advertising to be able to cure cancer with a machine they invented that subjected patients to intense electromagnetic fields. They charged fees upwards of $10,000 for "treatments" that did absolutely nothing. Thankfully this group was shut down, arrested, and prosecuted for fraud, but not before several cancer patients progressed beyond hope of proven treatments because they had put their faith in these people's claims.

Research that may ultimately save lives -- not just in the treatment of cancer and other diseases, but also research in safer food, consumer goods, better cars, and so forth -- is being stymied by people who vote based on FUD spread by conspiracy theorists for their own personal gain and attention. They all want to get on Art Bell or George Noory or whoever is catering to the paranoid insomniacs these days.

Further, the kind of slipshod, illogical thinking that conspiracy theories engender -- especially when picked up and given "fair" treatment by the mainstream press -- makes a trial by jury a pretty scary thing. Imagine if people were socially justified in believing whatever unfounded claims were laid at their feet?

[sts60]

Imagine if people were socially justified in believing whatever unfounded claims were laid at their feet?

You mean they're not already?

On the other hand, "Paranoid Insomniacs" would be a cool name for a band.

[nomuse]

Speaking of the band....