|
Post by james on Mar 16, 2007 22:24:49 GMT -4
Notice how close the tree is now to the photographer. There is no way the flag could be even on the horizon with the lander.Are your tree and tank in the exact same positions compared to the flag and LM? You also got too take into account the varying height of the ground. Interestingly I found this shot on Jack's page that contains a flag with no shadow... did special effects people paste flags into NASA's images from the moon?Simply just uneven terrain. Look at the ground, behind the astronaut above his own shadow, you can see the shadow of the flag pole appear there. www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5874HR.jpgAnd ask yourself this. Why go to all the trouble of pasting an image of a flag onto another image when they could have simply just have had the flag there to begin with? It's not like special effects and photo manipulation were that good or convincing at the time either. EDIT: Just noticing on Jack White's photo. The bottom line of his "NO SHADOW!" box partly covers the flag poles shadow. You don't suppose that could be a coincidence eh? Hmmmm
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Mar 16, 2007 23:06:51 GMT -4
The tank represents the lander and the tree the flag. Now try it again with the pole ahead of the tank, as with my "flag" relative to my car and the flag relative to the LM, rather than lined up with the front of the tank.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 17, 2007 0:20:01 GMT -4
Interestingly I found this shot on Jack's page that contains a flag with no shadow...
Because it's of too low a resolution for you to make out the shadow. Typical Jack White, I'm afraid.
...did special effects people paste flags into NASA's images from the moon?
No. Jack White just made the same careless, amateur mistake that two other self-appointed photo "analysts" have made over the past ten years.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 17, 2007 0:36:31 GMT -4
We can see that they match closely to the Apollo shot.
True but irrelevant.
Because of the nature of geometric projection through a lens, in which some original spatial information is lost, there will be a number of different three dimensional scenes that photograph identically, especially when the sizes and locations of some objects vary and the variance is indicated only by the information lost in the projection. This principle is the basis for much practical optical work in filmmaking, as anyone can testify who has taken pictures of their friends holding up the leaning tower of Pisa.
Having found one such scenario is not evidence per se that it is the one that generated the photograph. This is something amateur photographic analysts generally do not understand intuitively, and why some would-be analysts remain amateurs indefinitely. Undoing the limitations of projective geometry is what occupies a great deal of real photo analysts' efforts. Real photogrammetric rectification is a tedious, mathematically intense chore to weed out all the projectively-equivalent three-dimensional variants except for the true one.
That said, it is good that you're using the tools at your disposal to investigate these claims instead of merely taking Jack White's word for it. But I advise you to spend some time also in the real three-dimensional world paying close attention to how you perceive it when real distances and relationships are at stake.
Notice how close the tree is now to the photographer. There is no way the flag could be even on the horizon with the lander.
That's the problem: nearness. That's why you need to get out in the real world.
With a little geometry you can work out how far away the flag and lander are from the photographer. Set up the same scene in real life using those distances and investigate how arrangements such as in Bob's drawings play out with a real camera or your eyes.
As one recedes from a group of objects, the relative distance between them [ed. along the line of sight] becomes less significant compared to your distance from the epicenter of the group. You begin to perceive it as little or nothing, especially in photography, which denies you many important depth cues. When you understand why manhole covers look like ellipses from a distance, and like thin lines from an even farther distance, then you'll understand the mistake White has made.
However the mountain does match up fairly closely with the Apollo images so in that case yes Jack was wrong to point that out in his study.
And it's good of you to admit that. Now that White's spatial reasoning skills are shown not to be as acute as claimed, perhaps you will feel comfortable applying a bit more skepticism to his other claims and test them also yourself.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 17, 2007 1:13:41 GMT -4
There is no way the flag could be even on the horizon with the lander.
It's not, if you look at the page I posted earlier and keep refering back to, you'll see that it's no where near the horizon, remember that the flat image is a 360° circle in RL, the image with the flag in it was taken on around a 45° angle to the one the LM is in.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Mar 17, 2007 10:55:39 GMT -4
Why go to all the trouble of pasting an image of a flag onto another image when they could have simply just have had the flag there to begin with?
Consider too that the two photos Jack has in his graphic form a stereo pair. Simply pasting a flag into each will not achieve that affect.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Mar 17, 2007 16:37:38 GMT -4
Heh. I always love that hard-working Apollo film crew. Talk about "fix it in the mix!" These guys must have shown up drunk every day. "Hey, let's put the lander over here today. I dunno, 'cause it would make a nice change. Shine a spotlight on the flag. Oops, light is shining into the camera lens again. Oh, well...let the retouch guys deal with it. They've got to have something to keep them happy."
But my admiration is not for the slipshod crew (who still manage to get the greatest low-gravity and vacuum scenes every committed to film, even today), or the hard-working re-touch artists (who seem to have spent far too much of their time painting over half-a-fiducial in order to blow the whistle on the hoax. Hrm. A sealed envelope to the Washington Post a little too hard for you, John?)
It is for the crowd that came after, composed presumably of the same sort of people who endlessly debate Han Solo's "Kessel Run" remark to try to create a universe in which that comment actually made sense. These people went over all this random drunken filmaking and funny-looking props of aluminium foil and masking tape, and created detailed mission logs and even -- shudder -- telemetry that accounts for each and every little random bit of litter on the set. Complete, and completely consistent, but even more amazing....it actually works with science as it is understood today (not even then; this hard-working crew managed to anticipate questions asked by trained geologists thirty years later!)
|
|
|
Post by cygnusx1 on Mar 18, 2007 2:03:14 GMT -4
Data cable, I saw your video and pictures and I assume your against my viewpoint as everyone in this forum seems to be. Yet it proves my point that the flag would be below the horizon of the lander. Also I feel the tripod was placed too far towards the front of the car.
As far as uneven ground causing this effect, one can see from the photos that the ground around the lander is fairly level and both camera viewpoints satisfactorily show that they were taken on level ground. Even if it was unlevel I'm having trouble visualizing how it could create that anomalous position shift.
IMO this picture is smoking gun evidence that this picture was manipulated. And if this one picture was - can we trust any of them? Can we trust the whole reality of the moon landing?
FLAG WITH NO SHADOW
The high detail shot of the flag does seem to show a thin shadow so either Jack was wrong or NASA photoshopped it in later after they saw his study (hey I'm a conspiracy theorist).
MISSING TRACKS
As far as astronauts picking up their rover and moving it around seems unlikely to me unless it was stuck. Why would they pick it up and move it when it was already facing the lander on in the photo captioned "the final resting place of the rover".
Is there video evidence for the dust completely obscuring the tracks of the tires when braking due to no atmosphere? Again thats a tough nut to swallow, I mean there's absolutely no disturbance there and other shots of the rover show a well defined deep track. No it doesn't prove manipulation (the flag shift does that) but it's just another anomalous thing in the Apollo photos.
|
|
|
Post by james on Mar 18, 2007 2:14:29 GMT -4
FLAG WITH NO SHADOW The high detail shot of the flag does seem to show a thin shadow so either Jack was wrong or NASA photoshopped it in later after they saw his study (hey I'm a conspiracy theorist). But I could partly make it out in Jack's photo. You can also get copies of the original negatives. You can't photoshop those as far as I know.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 18, 2007 2:34:55 GMT -4
As far as uneven ground causing this effect, one can see from the photos that the ground around the lander is fairly level...
No. Still photos are known to be unrevealing in that way.
Even if it was unlevel I'm having trouble visualizing how it could create that anomalous position shift.
It has been demonstrated and described several times. You simply will not relax your arbitrary constraint that the photograph and LM are equidistant from the photographer.
IMO this picture is smoking gun evidence that this picture was manipulated.
Conspiracy theorists typically want to simplify a complex question down to one or two things so that they don't have to deal with the entire body of evidence.
And in any case, you simply can't figure out personally how it was done without moving the flag, while several other people can easily demonstrate it. Your inability to see the solution does not make it anomalous.
And if this one picture was - can we trust any of them? Can we trust the whole reality of the moon landing?
This whole line of reasoning is broken. Proving one photo fake does not automatically prove that some other photo was fake. That photo also has to be examined according to the evidence that applies to it.
You're trying to set the bar absurdly low for yourself.
The high detail shot of the flag does seem to show a thin shadow so either Jack was wrong or NASA photoshopped it in later after they saw his study...
LOL! That shadow has been visible in the photo long before Jack White ever paid attention to Apollo. Just because you are seeing 35-year-old photographs for the first time doesn't mean everyone else is.
Jack White is wrong. He's egregiously wrong. He's deceptively wrong, because he has been told many times not to claim missing details in small, low-quality JPEGs. He's amateurly wrong because he shouldn't have to be told that even once.
Now according to the line of reasoning you tried to foist off on us above, if we find out that White lied or was mistaken on any of his claims, then we can dismiss all of them. Are we allowed to do that, or do you argue that we need to examine each of White's claims? If the latter, you're trying to have your cake and eat it too.
As far as astronauts picking up their rover and moving it around seems unlikely to me unless it was stuck.
Irrelevant. It was picked up and moved on occasion. Therefore you have to demonstrate in each case you claim is anomalous that the rover was not picked up. That's what it means to undertake an indirect argument.
It boggles the mind how conspiracy theorists retreat to speculation about motive when confronted with fact. "No, that can't be, because I can't figure out why anyone would want to do that." Irrelevant! It is that way.
Is there video evidence for the dust completely obscuring the tracks of the tires when braking due to no atmosphere?
Straw man. There is 16mm film of considerable plumes of dust being ejected from the rover wheels in the rotation plane. If you argue that the rover tracks should be universally visible, you must show that this ejecta is irrelevant. It is your premise, therefore your burden of proof.
I mean there's absolutely no disturbance there and other shots of the rover show a well defined deep track.
It need not occur in every case in order to be credible in certain cases.
No it doesn't prove manipulation (the flag shift does that) but it's just another anomalous thing in the Apollo photos.
No, it's not anomalous. The inability to determine by evidence which of several credible effects may have occurred in some photo does not constitute an anomaly.
You argue that the rover tracks should be universally visible. Therefore you have the burden of proof specifically to eliminate all known causes of invisibility before claiming there is an anomaly. Simply saying you can't see how it would have been a factor is not satisfactory.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Mar 18, 2007 7:51:20 GMT -4
Data cable, I saw your video and pictures and I assume your against my viewpoint as everyone in this forum seems to be. You assume correctly. If, by "horizon", you mean vertical placement of the objects within the frame, note that A), I was much closer to my car and tripod than the astronaut was to the LM and flag, therefore differences in distance along the focal axis are more pronounced, 2) the land in my photographs is esentially flat. If not, you'll have to clarify what you mean. "Feelings... nothing more than feelings." Compare this frame from my traverse video... ...to AS16-113-18339, in both of which the flag is in direct line with the vehicle in the background, and note the relative orientation of the vehicles. Note the very obvious undulations of the ground in the Apollo photo referenced above. You can't visualize that if the flag were planted on a higher point than the LM, it would counteract the difference in "horizon", as I think you're calling it, between the flag and LM?
|
|
|
Post by AstroSmurf on Mar 18, 2007 8:18:50 GMT -4
The inability to determine by evidence which of several credible effects may have occurred in some photo does not constitute an anomaly. You argue that the rover tracks should be universally visible. Therefore you have the burden of proof specifically to eliminate all known causes of invisibility before claiming there is an anomaly. Simply saying you can't see how it would have been a factor is not satisfactory. I blame this on the HBers' overuse of the "Holmesian dichtomy", i.e. that much-repeated quote of "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth". It's an easy cop-out rationalising whatever flight of fancy they've chosen as their theory for the moment, but it glosses over the fact that in order to use this in the first place, you have to eliminate every single other possibility conceivable. And this is hardly ever possible to achieve in practice.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Mar 18, 2007 8:46:34 GMT -4
Also note that the photograph Data Cable linked to, AS16-113-18339 clearly shows uneven terrain, particularly to the 'right' of the flag. Both the shadows on, and the difference in light reflection off the surface clearly indicate hills uneven terrain.
EDIT: Edited out 'hills'; I'm not going to make the mistake of somebody misunderstanding me because improper use of words again.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 18, 2007 10:30:04 GMT -4
If, by "horizon", you mean vertical placement of the objects within the frame... If not, you'll have to clarify what you mean.
I've been wondering this too. Cygnusx1: it seems that you believe you can draw a horizontal line on the photo to represent the horizon (real or theoretical) and then draw vertical lines from the bottom edge of the frame toward the horizon, through where some feature intersects the ground, and from that determine accurately the distance of that feature from the photographer.
That's wrong for three reasons. First, in order for the technique to be geometrically valid, the terrain has to be geometrically flat. That is, perfectly flat. Not "fairly level" but exactly planar. Even a small rise where the flag is planted will make the flag seem farther away by that method than it actually is.
Second, the difference in distance between objects along the line of sight becomes progressively less visible the farther those objects both get from the photographer. Imagine standing on railroad tracks and looking down them into the distance. The difference between ties nearby is quite visible. However, as you raise your head and look into the distance, you can distinguish the space between the ties.
Third, it only works if you have a proven reference for the vertical or the horizontal, otherwise rotation around the optical axis will produce false results.
This is someting no conspiracy author seems to understand: You can't make up new techniques in photographic analysis without validating them and understanding how they work. Jack White, David Percy, and a host of others simply invent ad hoc methods that pretend to reason about the spatial relationships depicted in photos, but which are in fact hopelessly useless. All they do is fool laymen enough into giving them fame and money.
Now since your claim that the flag must have moved between pans is based on the premise that the flag is as far away from the photographer as the LM in one or both pans, how do you propose really to determine the distance?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 18, 2007 10:50:06 GMT -4
...in order to use this in the first place, you have to eliminate every single other possibility conceivable.
No, it's worse than that -- not just the conceivable but also the inconceivable. You don't get to use a process of elimination by saying, "That's all the possibilities I can think of." You have to be able provably to say, "That's all the possibilities there are." It is the claimant's responsibility to prove he has considered and eliminated by evidence all other possibilities. That enormous burden of proof is why few inductive questions can be answered by the Holmesian method (sorry, Sir Arthur), and why even when it would be appropriate, serious researchers eschew it.
|
|