I'm very confused about the Bean photo

[ambush]

Regarding the first conspiracist claim on page: www.clavius.org/beanspec.html

I am extremely confused by the site's summary of that first claim as well as the response. Please enlighten me (and I think you should consider revising that section of your site, because it baffles me -- an average reader -- utterly).

Is the conspiracist actually outright claiming that a chest-mounted camera cannot possibly take a photograph of a person's head, as the site's summary seems to suggest? Conspiracists are awfully nutty, sure, but they can't possibly be so stupid as to believe such a wildly counter-intuitive claim, can they? Are you trying to tell us that there are some people who believe that a person's head becomes invisible to a camera if seen from less than, say, 5 feet?

Note that it's not the conspiracist claim I'm doubting, it's the accuracy of your site's summary of their position that I can't accept. Surely you must be misrepresenting their position somewhat, yes?

But more to the point, given that the photograph CLEARLY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY shows the top Bean's helmet, the site's response to that claim is one of the most bizarre things I've ever read (given the contents of the photograph). Is the author actually trying to tell us that the top of Bean's helmet so blatantly and undeniably shown in the photo is NOT the top of Bean's helmet?

Really?? You're actually claiming that, as your response clearly states? C'mon!

Now, please don't understand me: I'm certainly not even hinting that the conspiracists might be right on this question. What I'm arguing is that both the summary given to the claim AND the response are equally bizarre and are equally nonsensical!

Please tell me there's something I haven't understood!

[PhantomWolf]

While Jay will be the much better one to asnswer since it's his page.

I believe that "summary"is in fact a direct quote of the claim, so changing it would actually make it different to what had been claimed.

I also would suggest that what Jay is saying is that it's impossible to determine in that point that appears at the top really is the top. However having said that I'd not that other contributing factors would apear to be that Bean appears to be standing omn slightly lower terain, and that he's leaning forward. Most of the time the astronauts had to lean forward due to their centre of balance being off due to the PLSS. You can see it better in some of the other images, especially Buzz saluting the flag.

[JayUtah]

Hm, maybe that portion of the dialogue needs to be reworded for clarity. I copied the claim verbatim as I heard it.

The conspiracist claim is that if the camera is at chest level, it cannot take a picture that shows the top of the head. It would have to look slightly upward toward the head and there isn't any way the line of sight could curve downward again to see the very top of the helmet.

But the claim begs the question that what we're seeing really is the true apex of the helmet. If you have a spherical surface, every conceivable line of sight will be tangent to it in one way or another, and without any special features on the surface, any of those tangents might seem like the apex.

So this claim is really wrong for two reasons. First, we don't know anything about relative height or stooping or any of the other spatial relationships that would affect the line of sight. And second, the premise is simplistic and largely meaningless since the view doesn't necessarily show the top of the helmet.

This is one of those difficult questions since it relies on a characteristic of visual perception that is unconsciously undertaken by many people. The most dangerous form of interpretation is the kind you don't know you're doing.

[gwiz]

Looking at the reflecftion of Conrad in the visor, I'm inclined to agree with Phantom that he appears to be standing on a small mound, or possibly a raised crater rim.

[peatblogman]

I know this is an old thread but I've just been looking at the same or similar photo and I think I have the answer.. The visor acts as a fish eye lense which alters the perspective drastically. The top of the helmet in the reflected image is in the area of the lensing effect that due to the distortion seems to be the most forward projecting part of the image. Plus the guy in the reflection is probably leaning forward which exagerates the effect.