|
|
Post by thetart on Apr 20, 2010 3:42:50 GMT -4
I hope his employers at Warwick University are aware that one of there staff is, as best, a very poor advertisement of the quality of staff there.
|
|
|
|
Post by robdog on Apr 20, 2010 3:57:11 GMT -4
Well to be fair, the Professor may very well be a brilliant mathematician and a superb lecturer. The weakness of his Apollo-related arguments have no bearing on his suitability as a member of staff, nor indeed on the quality of the rest of the staff.
Personally I think it's wrong for him to use the University's web site as a platform for his pet theories, but then again, Warwick University may be perfectly happy for their staff to post whatever they so wish on their personal web spaces.
Let's not get all ad hominem on him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Apr 20, 2010 5:52:21 GMT -4
1) I agree with you that Nicollier is working on something important using suitable looking tools, and that Irwin is captured in a more frivolous moment during the Apollo 15 mission. However, this only proves, well... that Nicollier is working on something important using suitable looking tools, and that Irwin is captured in a more frivolous moment during the Apollo 15 mission. The Apollo 15 astronauts did in fact spend many hours carrying out a variety of serious tasks which are clearly documented in the Apollo 15 Flight Journal ( history.nasa.gov/ap15fj/); they did not spend the entire mission "arsing around". Even so, I see no reason why astronauts caught on film doing anything other than carrying out scientific tasks should be deemed suspicious. Professor Rourke obviously knows very little about Apollo. Nearly all the astronauts took "tourist shots" like this, but by far the greatest percentage of the photos were to do with their work. If he thinks this is frivolous, what does he think of John Young's jump-salute, or the Apollo 12 Playmate pictures, or Pete Conrad "singing" atrociously, "Dum-dee-dum dum-dum", and the many jokes cracked by the astronauts? I haven't looked at his web site -- does he actually claim the astronauts were "arsing around", and how much of it does he claim they did? As already mentioned, give a link to the ALSJ not the AFJ. 2) It is not true that Apollo astronauts "always have mirrored visors". Here: i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/07/19/article-0-05C30DC4000005DC-422_634x542.jpg, and here:
history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17schmitt.face.jpg are images of Apollo astronauts with clear visors.You haven't simply and clearly stated that the gold-plated visor could be raised, as shown in the photos. Nicollier is of course working in full sunlight; he's in space right? I presume you mean that he's facing the sun. What evidence do you have that he is facing the sun, and even if he were, what evidence do you have that this would require him to deploy his mirrored visor?Probably better to say that it's pretty clear that Nicollier is not in direct sunlight at all -- he is completely in earthshine as previously pointed out. The light is very soft, with no harsh shadows. 3) Regarding the quality of light in the photographs; what exactly is the "usual yellowish character" of a photograph taken in space? Why would the Nicollier photograph, taken at an altitude of 328 nautical miles, be in anything other than "clean sunlight"?It's not in sunlight as pointed out above. By asking for information you are not debunking. Can you quantify the "bluish tinge" that you claim to see in the Apollo photograph? What exactly are the "definite distance shading effects" that you claim to see? Can you explain to me why any percieved colour casts to the two photographs may not be caused by differences in the equipment and film used, reflections from the items contained in the photographs, or the two entirely different locations?Better to debunk whatever he claims rather than ask for further explanations. In any case, it sounds to me as if he possibly couldn't explain further. Nicollier's suit is clean because he is in a clean environment. Irwin's suit looks less clean because it has attracted lunar regolith.I'd say Irwin's suit is filthy. Besides, as the ALSJ Image Library caption for AS15-88-11866 explains "A detail shows that Jim has a strap-on pocket on each thigh", so that is one reason of many that it looks different. 5) What evidence do you have that Nicollier's outer suit has been partially inflated due to leakage from his pressurised inner suit?Probably better to explain that the outside protective layers of suits like that are never inflated. Only the internal suit is, and it is covered with a restraining layer to prevent it ballooning. 6) There is indeed a crosshair in the middle of the Apollo photo. If you are referring to your version of the photograph then the reason that there's a crosshair in the centre is because you cropped the photo in such a way that there's a crosshair in the centre. If you are referring to the original photograph, then please explain to me why there shouldn't be a crosshair in the centre. Lastly, please explain to me exactly what is artifical about the horizontal lines dividing the background shades in the Apollo photo.Again, simply debunk rather than ask for more detail. All Apollo lunar surface photos taken with the Hasselblads have a crosshair in the centre which is larger than the others. The lines in the background are simply due to the local, nearby ground dropping away, the background horizon, and the distant mountain which is kilometers away. There's no mystery just because he can't understand. Send him to this page: www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/cbackgnd.htmWhy not invite the professor here? I personally think it shameful that a "man of science" should rubbish a scientific endeavour with his own ignorance, and feel that perhaps he should stick to what he's good at. Finally, please be careful. It takes a lot of knowledge and experience to debunk many of the Apollo "hoax" claims, and it's not a good idea to try it on many claims without that knowledge. One or two in an informal context are okay, but making a mistake can undo a lot of the good work done by experienced debunkers. Edited to add: Oops! Fixed some typos and added the telus link before noticing Robdog's reply below. |
|
|
|
Post by robdog on Apr 20, 2010 6:30:45 GMT -4
Firstly thank you for all of your very helpful and constructive comments (and the same goes to everyone else who has contributed). It's not in sunlight as pointed out above. By asking for information you are not debunking. I did consider this, but I am not sure whether to come out with a straightforward rebuttal of his comments, or to try and "draw him out" further with questions. For example here: ...If you are referring to the original photograph, then please explain to me why there shouldn't be a crosshair in the centre...Again, simply debunk rather than ask for more detail. All Apollo lunar surface photos taken with the Hasselblads have a crosshair in the centre which is larger than the others. I was trying see if he already knew that the Hasselblads had a reseau plate that would produce a centralised cross hair on every photograph that they took, but if he didn't, that the question would encourage him to do some more research so that he found that fact out for himself. Why not invite the professor here? I fully intend to do so. Finally, please be careful. It takes a lot of knowledge and experience to debunk many of the Apollo "hoax" claims, and it's not a good idea to try it on many claims without that knowledge. One or two in an informal context are okay, but making a mistake can undo a lot of the good work done by experienced debunkers. Totally agree, which is why I've been asking for help. Maybe I'm biting off more than I can chew with this one. I think I'll bow out at this stage then and just invite the Professor here, and let the more experienced members deal with this if he turns up.  |
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Apr 20, 2010 6:56:51 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 20, 2010 11:33:15 GMT -4
I can understand a first-grader being taken in by the whole fake moon landing thing; but a Professor of mathematics? I find that somehow slightly disturbing As well you should. While professors are usually experts within their narrow fields of study, outside of that they may display copious ignorance. They may also have any number of religious or political beliefs that compel them to speak and act. Most academics are good about staying within their expertise when speaking under their academic colors. However there are always a few who venture outside it and wrongly believe that their credentials and experience somehow naturally make them less susceptible to error. One thing I've noticed about mathematicians and physicists and others whose professional world is largely a synthetic construct: they sometimes fail to appreciate the "messiness" of the real world. That is, they are stuck in the mindset of reasoning from elementary principles and extrapolating outward. And if something doesn't fit into the extrapolation, it's somehow suspect. The naive, synthetic approach proposes that you can explain all the observations from first principles that can be either observed directly in the image or reliably inferred. This is not how investigators work. Not all causal chains are apparent. While universities generally allow their faculty to publish anything they want in the name of academic freedom, there does appear to be a limit. In a few cases I'm aware of, universities have asked individual professors not to include their university affiliation when publishing fringe theories. |
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 20, 2010 11:57:39 GMT -4
Let's not get all ad hominem on him. It's not necessarily ad hominem. If his study identifies the author as a faculty member of the Mathematics Institute of the University of Warwick, it stands to reason that he is claiming some form of expert status as opposed to Colin Rourke, Just Some Bloke. If he's going to claim or imply expertise and make arguments that seem based on expert knowledge or opinion, then the validity and applicability of that expertise is not irrelevant or ad hominem. msp.warwick.ac.uk/~cpr/hadley.pdf proposed to analyze and evaluate photographs for authenticity. We legitimately wonder where a mathematics professor acquired the specific knowledge to interpret and analyze photographs. Further, when he makes claims such as the Hasselblad camera being "fixed to the breastplate" (and thereby presumably immobile) it indeed shows a lack of research. Portraying himself as an expert but failing to exhibit expertise is not an ad hominem argument; it is a legitimate impeachment of his expertise. Prof. Rourke could be considered an expert in formal logic, since mathematics requires it. But when he makes statements such as, "Given that two of the ground photos are fake it seems plausible that all three are fake," make me weep. That's nothing more than supposition. |
|
|
|
Post by robdog on Apr 20, 2010 12:30:15 GMT -4
I hope his employers at Warwick University are aware that one of there staff is, as best, a very poor advertisement of the quality of staff there.To JayUtah. Yes, I expressed myself poorly there. I was really trying to express my concern that the criticism of Rourke was being unfairly extended to the rest of the faculty. |
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 20, 2010 13:07:04 GMT -4
I don't know; I think one person saying, "This one part is obviously wrong," is helpful. Especially if that one person is an amateur and can show how easy the information is to find. (Visors? Really?) Even if it's then followed by "I don't know about the rest," that would hopefully get a reasonable person to start looking at what they've said, and I have no reason to believe the professor is not a reasonable person--hoax belief is not sufficient for that.
What's more, asking questions of the person can theoretically get them to consider their own views as well. I've had that work on me--I've said something foolish, and then a person asked what on Earth I was talking about in certain specific ways, and I realized my whole premise was wrong. Straight debunking can also sound like we're not listening, just providing rote responses.
|
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 20, 2010 16:06:04 GMT -4
I agree with you that Nicollier is working on something important using suitable looking tools...The suitable-looking tool that Nicollier is holding is a fancy torque wrench, a common tool used in STS EVAs for installing and removing threaded fasteners. It does such things as count revolutions and manage the torque applied to the fastener. His shaded visor is up. Even so, I see no reason why astronauts caught on film doing anything other than carrying out scientific tasks should be deemed suspicious.Indeed. Cherry-picking one instant from two different missions does not imply they should be comparable in all respects. Referring Rourke to more extensive histories of the respective missions is appropriate. This is the argument I label "If I Ran the Zoo." That is, any argument where someone's subjective expectations or standards form the basis of a judgment of authenticity relies upon their ability to demonstrate that their expectations are valid. Someone behaving "inappropriately" is not immediately connected to the notion of authenticity. It simply does not follow that people engaged in fakery will behave "inappropriately." Nicollier is of course working in full sunlight; he's in space right?No, that doesn't follow. If you watch a substantial amount of NASA TV you'll see astronauts on EVA working in all different lighting conditions. As has been noted, the lighting is very soft. This indicates a large area light source and a narrow difference between key and fill lighting. From the cues in the photo we can conclude that Nicollier's key light is earthlight and his fill is from the brightly painted or highly reflective surfaces around him. You can indeed see the Earth reflected in his visor. A camera can artificially brighten a scene by overexposure. Just because Nicollier is "brightly" lit in this photo doesn't mean the naked eye would have seen it that way. Kiwi is right here: point out that the shaded visors are retractable and let Rourke propose and defend an alternate line of reasoning. Don't propose to guide him down some desired path. If he accepts that the visor retracts but then proposes that it should be down in this scene, then ask him further questions about that line of reasoning. The goal in all cases should be to identify the underlying expectations and assumptions and make sure they're in order. "His visor should be down" is based on the assumption "He is in direct sunlight." Abstractly in any case, he may or may not be. But the point is that you have to identify that assumption and test it for strength. And since it's still based on an assessment of propriety it remains subjective. There are extenuating circumstances in any "should" argument, so they are generally weak. Regarding the quality of light in the photographs...This is always a fun topic. Conspiracy theorists seem drawn to photographic analysis, but none of them is any good at it. I'm not surprised here, since Rourke cites Jack White as a major influence. And White has no skill at photographic interpretation. Any time I'm asked questions such as "yellowish tint" or "blue haze" I immediately go back and ask how those were measured and against what standards. Those questions are fraught with subjectivity. Kiwi's warning notwithstanding, you need to press for those details. As soon as you start trying to explain tints and casts and density, you've accepted the conspiracist's premise that those effects are there and that they don't belong. And you'll have already lost, since you'll then have accepted the burden of proof for some affirmative rebuttal you probably didn't intend to make. Laymen -- and in this case a mathematician is a layman -- are typically very naive when it comes to real-world applications of light intensity, reflection, and wavelength. You need to have spent a few good solid years in theater and film to even begin to know how surfaces and light interact. Most laymen who propose to reason about lighting from simplistic interactions and known light sources are flabbergasted to discover just how subtle an interreflection it takes to completely change the impression of a scene. Now couple that with photography, which adds its own notions of color cast and density, and you have a situation were prediction from first principles becomes difficult. So do ask questions that are intended to expose the faulty assumptions behind the argument (e.g., that film records images exactly as would the human eye), but don't do it in so leading a fashion. You're essentially telling your opponent where you intend to take the debate, and that opens up an opportunity for him to impose an affirmative burden of proof. Nicollier's suit is clean because he is in a clean environment. Irwin's suit looks less clean because it has attracted lunar regolith.Very true and very pertinent to the discussion. But the Beta cloth used in 1970 is different than the Beta cloth used today in space suits. This is a discussion I had with my friend George from Global Effects: some of their Apollo suit costumes use modern Beta cloth such as is used in modern space suits. This cloth is a tighter weave and has been calendared to make it less abrasive and reduce the snag potential. Apollo era Beta cloth is a looser weave and maintains the woven texture. It will simply have different optical properties for visual purposes. What evidence do you have that Nicollier's outer suit has been partially inflated due to leakage from his pressurised inner suit?It's always good to ask for the line of reasoning behind specific theories. Rourke seems fond of jumping to conclusions without really spelling out the line of reasoning that got him there. This is especially true when he attempts indirect arguments. He throws out the straw man and then says things like, "the only remaining plausible alternative is..." This is structurally weak because it's indirect, but it's also empirically weak because the line of reasoning establishing why that would be the only remaining alternative is missing in action. There is indeed a crosshair in the middle of the Apollo photo.I'm not sure what his argument is regarding the fiducials. Lastly, please explain to me exactly what is artifical about the horizontal lines dividing the background shades in the Apollo photo.As with many self-proclaimed photographic analysts before him, Rourke argues that this division must mark where the scenic rostrum slopes away and the background flat takes over. Since they can't be made seamless in the studio environment, the seam is simply made overt. And yes it's very proper to ask why that feature in the photograph makes the photograph necessarily fake. The reason we use that technique in stagecraft is because it mimics real life. His is classic circular reasoning. But it gets more insidious. Like Jack White and others, Rourke makes the mistake of using the ridge line geometry as the basis of what he believes should change materially from on vantage point to another. Mountains just don't work like that. I live in the mountains, and I photograph them a lot. But unlike his predecessors, Rourke notes that certain other features of the "backdrop" indeed change their relative position from shot to shot. But he makes the astounding claim that this is due to variable elements in the backdrop! That is, he simply proposes that pieces of the backdrop can be moved and repositioned in order to create this effect. Such circularity is abysmally unacceptable from someone who purports to think logically for a living. He is essentially admitting that the observations don't fit the "static backdrop" theory he just presented, and fails to not that they don't fit in exactly the way that would be expected if these were real mountains. The overriding question you want to ask these know-nothing "analysts" is how they came by their methods. That is, they purport to be able to look at photographs and tell you based on their observations whether that photograph is likely real or likely fake. They owe the world an explanation of how they derived these methods -- and far more importantly, how they tested those methods to see whether they really would distinguish real photos from fake. Rourke needs to be able to tell you how he's able to distinguish fake photos with horizontal dividing lines from real photos with horizontal dividing lines. Rourke concludes his paper with a theory about how the Apollo 14 fiducials became duplicated. He proposes a "halo plate" in a process camera that mistakenly duplicated the fiducials while producing (somehow) the halo effect around the sun image. He draws diagrams out on paper that show his proposed paths of refraction and reflection. But, as with the stereotypical mathematician, once the paper proof is done he thinks the work is over. No, now he needs to demonstrate using actual camera equipment that the setup he proposes will actually produce the predicted results. He has a hypothesis, but no proof.
|
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 20, 2010 16:20:16 GMT -4
Yes, I expressed myself poorly there. I was really trying to express my concern that the criticism of Rourke was being unfairly extended to the rest of the faculty. It would be unfair to judge the rest of Warwick's faculty by Rourke's statements, but unfortunately that's often the way academia works. There is prestige in being on the faculty of Harvard University more so than Gudger College simply because one basks more in the lustre of one's peers. In a sense all universities wish to extend the maximum academic freedom to their faculty in order to stimulate free thought and creativity. Historically professors must step very grossly outside mainstream thought for there to be any consideration for rebuke or comment. The free exchange of ideas -- however misguided some of them may turn out to be -- is the hallmark of academia; and in a few cases why academia is ridiculed as dissociated from the "real world." However the harboring of patently poor research and faulty reasoning (regardless of subject) raises the questions about the university's standards. A parent contemplating sending his child there for education will naturally wonder what failure of hiring standards led to employing someone of such demonstrably poor reasoning skills and introspective judgment. This inevitably taints the impression of the rest of the faculty, who may indeed be highly qualified and conscientious. It undermines the assurance we would ordinarily have of the expertise and authority of a university professor. |
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Apr 20, 2010 22:49:21 GMT -4
I did some remodeling years ago for a software engineer. Brilliant guy, in many ways, but a complete dunce in other ways. His ability to create literally any solution that a software problem presented created a mindset that a carpenter could create literally any solution to any real or imaginary problem in a house.
"No, I don't think we can put a elevator in that closet."
"No, glass blocks cannot be cut. If you want an odd number of columns in that window, we'll have to enlarge or reduce the window opening, which will affect how the brick work on the front of the house looks. Or, you can accept having an even number of columns of glass block in the window."
"Yes, the whole-house fan is loud, you specified the most powerful model on the market. And yes, it appears to have blown out the pilot lite on your water heater. We'll need to add a make-up air vent."
Then there was the day he complained about people driving around with a lug nut rattling around in their hub caps, wondering why they do that and how come they don't fix it. Took me a couple of years to figure out he was talking about the noise a bad Constant Velocity Joint (CVJ) makes going around a corner.
People who are that smart sometimes make the mistaken assumption that (a) they are never wrong and (b) everyone else is stupid.
|
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 20, 2010 23:11:40 GMT -4
That's a common attitude in software people, and why I thank <deity> every day that I was trained in more classical engineering as well as in software. The design vocabulary for mechanical systems (including electrical and fluid power systems) is extremely limited compared to that available to software. Now it makes software very rewarding because it is an act of creation almost by sheer will alone. But it does tend to give software people a skewed view of the messy world in which the rest of us often have to live. Show me a software guy who can replace the lower control arm on a MacPherson strut suspension and I'll show you a guy who is legitimately grateful to make his living in software.
Don't get me wrong. People who have good theoretical knowledge (including mathematics and theoretical physics) often create elegant solutions in software because they have that wonderful ability to reason about problems abstractly. The best software for "dirty" practical problems is often built around a nugget of cleverly abstract -- and often elegantly simple -- program code. The "hardware" guys and Boeing, Grumman, and North American lambasted the software guys at MIT for their comparatively lackadaisical approach. But it was the software geeks who programmed around that blob of solder in the Apollo 14 abort switch. The Apollo code bases are elegant. Those guys could teach some modern software people a thing or two.
|
|
|
|
Post by robdog on Apr 21, 2010 7:58:08 GMT -4
Why not invite the professor here? I personally think it shameful that a "man of science" should rubbish a scientific endeavour with his own ignorance, and feel that perhaps he should stick to what he's good at. Finally, please be careful. It takes a lot of knowledge and experience to debunk many of the Apollo "hoax" claims, and it's not a good idea to try it on many claims without that knowledge. One or two in an informal context are okay, but making a mistake can undo a lot of the good work done by experienced debunkers. I have taken your advice Kiwi, and have invited Professor Rourke here (and BAUT) rather than make a botched effort myself! I do hope he accepts. |
|
|
|
Post by kallewirsch on Apr 21, 2010 8:25:09 GMT -4
As for the "yellowish tint" or "blue haze"
There are a number of reasons, why potographs have such things. Photo-magazines of the 70-s oer 80-s were full of comparisons on how different brands of photographic emulsions reproduce colors. Some gave more blue-ish colors, some shifted the spectrum more into the orange area. Hack, even if the same brand of film was used under identical lighting conditions, it depended on the dark room process if and what color shift one came up with. Photographs all over the world knew this and used it to 'alter' there photos the way they thought it should be. If it would be possible to give the same undeveloped film to 2 different photo-stores, the resulting paper copies would not look 100% identical, since it also depends on the photo-paper used for the copy, how colors will look like.
What was true in the 70-s and 80-s for analog photographic emulsions, is true for todays camera chips too. Study 5 or 6 issues of a photo magazine of your choice and you will find at least one issue where different cameras are compared to each other with examples of some standard test sceneries included which, needless to say, all look a little bit different.
So the only conclusion one can draw:
It is a misconception, although a very common one, that colors on a photo 100% reproduce the colors as seen by the naked eye.
|
|
