|
Post by rocketdad on Sept 27, 2005 11:05:08 GMT -4
To paraphrase Costella he said he would not trust any photographs to prove this ponit, since they are just too easy to manipulate. He requested detailed maths to prove it was possible, and he even said he had his students try to replicate the experiment and failed. How I don't know. He was given detailed instructions on how to take a similar photograph but I guess its just not within his area of expertise to do so. He must not have a PhD in using a point and shoot digital camera.... It is interesting that everyone else who has tried has be able to replicate the results. Perhaps he was using the "same focal length" lens, an 80mm, rather than "equivalant focal length", about 35mm, which is what most point and shoot cameras have installed. An 80mm lens on 2-and-a-quarter film is slightly wide angle, but is mildly telephoto on 35mm film. The shadow-angle thing is always at the edge of the frame of the Apollo photographs, and can be seen to "rotate" away from the photographer's perspective in a continuous round manner. This is a known effect of wide angle lenses. Also, and I've never seen anybody here point this out, but multiple light sources create multiple shadows, not single shadows in multiple directions.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Sept 27, 2005 13:11:02 GMT -4
As I recall, his beef was with the way the shadow pointed in the picture. He argues that it's impossible mathematically for Armstrong's shadow to be (a) at the left side of the photo and (b) parallel with the left edge of the frame. He argues, if memory serves, that the shadow should be angled to the right more and point toward the center of the photograph. There is no such mathematical "rule" in projective geometry, and this is a photograph that is quite easy for anyone with a camera to duplicate. Costella does something that is, in my opinion, fairly aggravating coming from a science teacher: he argues strictly on the basis of a vague reference to theory while ignoring clear empirical evidence. He says the observation "must" be bogus because it violates theory. That is not science. Scientific conclusions and the arguments and premises for them must be challenged when they fail to predict or explain an observation. That is how science progresses toward newer and more useful theories. Yes, the observation itself must be challenged for validity, but a meaningful invalidation cannot base itself strictly on its incongruity with prevailing theory (or one person's understanding of it). I would be glad to discuss the mathematics of this with Costella, but I highly doubt he's really interested in the mathematics. I believe he's more likely interested in having a discussion that few lurkers would be able to follow, so that it's not so readily apparent when he's proven wrong. As I have said before, Costella's doctoral work is in a field that little appreciates the value of direct observation and argues instead purely from abstractions. I'm an engineer. My life's work rests solely on the back of detailed mathematical models for the behavior of the world, many of which have pedigrees as old as civilization. I have a deep appreciation for theoretical work that enables me to do what I do. However, theory doesn't amount to a hill of beans unless it accurately and specifically predicts behavior that I'm interested in, such as how images are deposited on film through optics. If the theory -- or Costella's understanding of it -- says one thing and the film says another, then the theory -- or Costella's understanding of it -- is simply wrong. You can't fake the kind of science I do. As I told someone in marketing a few months ago, "You can't fake engineering -- the universe bitch-slaps you when you're wrong." And so I do rely on empiricism because it's often the quickest and most effective way to show someone that his thinking is wrong. Costella wants to be shown wrong simply by more thinking, which turns into an abstract mathematical debate that may have no final bearing on how the universe behaves. So I'd rather stand next to Costella and take the "impossible" picture and have him reconcile that fact with his theory. I appreciate academic achievement. As I said, I was well on my way to earning a doctorate before the industry tempted me away. However, I have seen both the good and the bad that comes from an overabundance of academic work without sufficient useful experience. Costella is not the only person I've seen who waves diplomas at everyone who questions him, without being able to demonstrate any actual knowledge or understanding of the matter at hand. That, in my opinion, is what separates an expert from someone out of his element or inappropriately qualified: the truly qualified really can walk the walk when it comes to detailed technical discussion. They can explain to anyone the workings of the universe at whatever level of rigor or detail is required. They don't have to insist that everyone must trust them because they are unlikely to be wrong. As for multiple lights and multiple shadows: I don't remember if I discuss it specifically on Clavius, but here are my sample photos: www.clavius.org/img/multhshdw1.jpgThe lighting instruments are visible in the photo. Note how each object casts two shadows, and how the shadows appear in different grades of density where they overlap. www.clavius.org/img/multhshdw2.jpgA clearer example of the appearance of shadows where multiple point light sources are used. www.clavius.org/img/multhshdw3.jpgA striking example of light from multiple sources pouring through a break between two set pieces. You can't hide these effects, and they're nothing like what the conspiracy theorists say should happen.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Sept 27, 2005 13:16:01 GMT -4
I get a not found error when I try go to those links, Jay.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Sept 27, 2005 17:21:13 GMT -4
I actually spent a good part of an hour reading one of Dr. Costella's papers (as provided in pdf through his website). It pertained to a field I do a small amount of paying work in (3d graphics). Interesting read. Pretty far out there. And what appeared (at least in the limited context of the paper) an understanding of human vision, the illusions of depth and movement, and the current foreseeable directions in computer simulation of artificial realities, that was extremely academic. I would describe what he put forth in this paper as an idea so far out in left field it is capable of jarring the mind into new insights along the paths that are already known and practical. That is not just me being kind. I think he has the potential for starting someone on what comes after backwards ray tracing. But it won't be as he describes.
Not that any of that should matter. But I think I understand how he sees a little better; how his expectations of the world delude him when he searches through the Z-film for evidence of forgery. (Not to put too fine a point on it, but most of what is described in the long section of his web page on this subject is laughable).
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Sept 27, 2005 23:27:33 GMT -4
Where does Costella make these claims? The arguments sound very Jack White-ish.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Sept 27, 2005 23:33:21 GMT -4
There was an interesting article in New Scientist a few weeks back, suggesting that the systems that could be affected by cellphone transmissions were secondary ones like GPS navigation. Which is still potentially very dangerous: most cases of Controlled Flight Into Terrain occur because the pilots have the wrong impression of where the plane actually is. A minor quibble from further up this thread: if airspeed reduces, surely the nose must be pitched up to increase the angle of attack of the wing and so increase lift to maintain altitude? I'd love to read that, what's the link?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 28, 2005 3:24:57 GMT -4
There was an interesting article in New Scientist a few weeks back, suggesting that the systems that could be affected by cellphone transmissions were secondary ones like GPS navigation. Which is still potentially very dangerous: most cases of Controlled Flight Into Terrain occur because the pilots have the wrong impression of where the plane actually is. A minor quibble from further up this thread: if airspeed reduces, surely the nose must be pitched up to increase the angle of attack of the wing and so increase lift to maintain altitude? I'd love to read that, what's the link? Well why I believe that New Scientist does have a site and publishes some of their articles on that, they are still monthly Journal and thus is more likely to be available in your local library than on the net.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Sept 28, 2005 3:43:04 GMT -4
It's a weekly magazine, with a website here. Unfortunately, I think you have to be a subscriber to access their archive
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Sept 28, 2005 13:58:42 GMT -4
It's a weekly magazine, with a website here. Unfortunately, I think you have to be a subscriber to access their archive Damn you're right Is there anyway you could be convinced to post the text here? Cellphones at 35,000 feet10 September 2005 David Cohen Gerry Byrne Magazine issue 2516 Is the clamour to allow in-flight cellphone calls threatening to endanger airline passengers' lives? New Scientist investigates IT WAS just another flight for the nine passengers flying from Palmerston North to Christchurch, New Zealand, on the night of Friday 6 February 2003. As the aircraft approached its destination, the darkness and bad weather meant the pilot of the small aircraft, a Piper Navajo Chieftain, was flying the landing approach on instruments. Without warning, the aircraft crashed into a tree 2 kilometres ahead of the runway. The pilot and seven passengers were killed; only two survived. The accident investigation revealed that, during its entire approach, the aircraft had been below the glide path for the runway. It could even have crashed sooner; analysis of the instruments found that the aircraft's glide slope indicators were telling the pilot to descend further. So what went wrong? Investigators discovered that a call had been made from the pilot's cellphone just moments before the plane intercepted the signal from Christchurch airport's glide ... The complete article is 2624 words long. To continue reading this article, subscribe to New Scientist. Get 4 issues of New Scientist magazine and instant access to all online content for only $4.95
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Sept 28, 2005 14:15:49 GMT -4
Where does Costella make these claims? The arguments sound very Jack White-ish.
Yes, they were made by Costella on Jack White's behalf on White's JFKResearch forum some years ago. They were "smuggled" out of that forum and posted here on the previous version of this board. That's why I'm somewhat general and tentative about the actual claims: to my knowledge there is no way to recover Costella's actual claims from either board.
|
|
|
Post by craiglamson on Sept 28, 2005 17:00:41 GMT -4
Where does Costella make these claims? The arguments sound very Jack White-ish.Yes, they were made by Costella on Jack White's behalf on White's JFKResearch forum some years ago. They were "smuggled" out of that forum and posted here on the previous version of this board. That's why I'm somewhat general and tentative about the actual claims: to my knowledge there is no way to recover Costella's actual claims from either board. Jay, I poked Costella with the apollo shadow stick on the yahoo forum.... groups.yahoo.com/group/FETZERclaimsDEBUNK/message/162The conversation continues from there for a few posts, you are even involved to a degree If you proceed a bit he also gets into Tinks face over zero phase glare which is another thing he's not quite sure exists. Heres the thing that freaks me out about Costella. He needed directions on how to make the image. I'm no scientist, just a silly photographer but when I'm faced with something I don't understand I try and learn from someone who does understand OR I go and try it myself...if possible...to see if it is possible. This shadow thing does not take a PhD to test, you just go out and try it. Either it works or not. Why does a PhD need instructions to complete such a simple task for himself?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Sept 28, 2005 19:19:20 GMT -4
This shadow thing does not take a PhD to test, you just go out and try it. Either it works or not.
As I said, I believe Costella's degree is in a field that does not think much of empiricism. It is based, as nearly as I can tell, on pure deduction.
I use mathematics and deduction all the time. Several times an hour, actually. But because people count on me, I have learned -- and I teach my subordinates -- to apply "real world" controls to the answers. If my computations tell me, for example, that my car gets 382 miles to the gallon, I might be tempted to go back and see if I made an order-of-magnitude error.
Why does a PhD need instructions to complete such a simple task for himself?
Perhaps he is really unwilling to do it because of what he fears it will tell him. Costella is a member of a very small group: people who have legitimate academic credentials and who nevertheless advocate some pretty nutty things. Success in the academic world depends in part on being able to maintain a certain reputation -- to have a degree of respectability and a certain body of expertise attached to one's name. If Costella is trying to walk the fine line between respectability in the mainstream and notoriety at any price by appealing to the conspiracists, then perhaps this is a calculated move.
Perhaps his academic credentials are not an accurate measurement of his overall intelligence. Anymore these days, an advanced degree signifies "deep" proficiency in some particular field, but not necessarily a breadth of knowledge and experience.
Perhaps he is of that brand of person who is brilliant when it comes to purely abstract deduction, and all thumbs when it comes actually to doing things. I find a large number of PhDs fall into that category. I remember one computer science PhD who couldn't cable up his own Ethernet hub. I find that the longer one stays in a pure academic environment, the less useful information one actually knows. This is not to say that PhD expertise is not helpful, but it doesn't generally apply to "practical" problems.
This is the big problem I have with Fetzer and Costella. They seem to wave PhD diplomas as trump cards over any argument. A PhD is not a "get out of jail free" card in any argument or a general certification of broad intelligence and knowledge. It is simply a certification of advanced proficiency in some particular, narrow field of study that includes having conducted original research under the supervision of a professor. PhD-type thinking is extremely important, but it is not as universally applicable as these gentlemen seem to propose.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Sept 28, 2005 20:51:30 GMT -4
I could tell you a few horror stories about people with MFA's in theater arts, Jay. There was this one intern at TheaterWorks, we started calling "Goddard" or "Von Braun" -- especially after the episode with the band saw.
But then, theater arts is primarily a _crafts_ field -- experience counts.
|
|
golfhobo
Venus
DAMN! That woulda gone in the hole IF....
Posts: 86
|
Post by golfhobo on Oct 1, 2005 0:12:55 GMT -4
That link is taking me to the Yahoo signup page - which I don't want to do. Any chance of posting it here? Okay, Obviousman, I posted it as a new thread. Hope I'm not wasting your time. You "obviously" already have a grip on what happened. I have another one on why I believe Conry only has about 2000 hours. I'll post it too.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Oct 1, 2005 19:52:29 GMT -4
I could tell you a few horror stories about people with MFA's in theater arts, Jay. There was this one intern at TheaterWorks, we started calling "Goddard" As in Jean Luc or Robert?
|
|