|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jun 30, 2005 20:49:06 GMT -4
For the life of me, I can't come with any alternatives other than my descirptions.The "bare arm" does look like a bare arm, but it also look like the erectable antenna: Antenna comparisonYou can see that the folded-up mesh material of the dish on the training image on the right matches the shape of the "arm-like" feature on the left. Plus, they both have a pole extending out of the center of them. Pete Conrad was setting up the antenna at this time. Two or so minutes later he let's the antenna unfold into its full dish shape laughing and exclaiming, "Look at that go!"
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jun 30, 2005 21:57:11 GMT -4
I really do not, and never have, become a follower of "conspiracy theorists" who try and prove their point through selective editing and/or manipulation of photos/videos.
I am not accusing anyone of trickery. I am criticizing the poor practices conspiracy theorists promote.
My "cropping and enlarging" comment was directed at certain types of conspiracists. They promote a culture that rewards you not for developing an understanding of the context of each frame or photo, but by finding isolated features that give rise to the most suspicion. Cropping is one technique, but single or short sequences of frames isolated from their surrounding context can hinder understanding just as well. It not that this context is left out of posted images that is the problem, but that the context was not taken into account at all.
What we have to take exception to is when their bad habits end up influencing analyses such as yours that try to be independent. The poor image anlaysis techniques they promote have led you away from a proper understanding of the Apollo 12 video, which I am sure is not what you set out to do.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 30, 2005 23:19:20 GMT -4
I replaced the arm pic you posted with a more distinct, sharper frame for better comparison. There are several problems I have with your suggestion that they are (or could be) the same thing, such as..... 1. The "arm" has distinct flesh tones that are quite different than the color of the folded mesh. 2. The mesh has very prominent "ribbing" folds which are not present in the "arm" in any of the frames. The "arm" has a very smooth overall surface. 3. The "arm" has characteristics, contours and shading which are in parallel to a human arm. There are "knuckles " at the upper end, a narrowing down of the hand, and an elbow at the bottom of the forearm which is bent . Nothing in the folded mesh has those features. The shape of the mesh (at least in this photo) is much like a folded umbrella - strapped in the middle and flared slightly out toward the bottom.. And of course, the "arm" doesn't have any strap visible in any of the frames, either. 4. The overall diameter and length of the folded mesh appears to me much greater than the "arm". Thx for your response to this - I appreciate the effort in finding something to compare the "arm" to. It IS the most similar item I have seen yet to the "arm", but imo does not succeed in being the correct match to the "arm".
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 30, 2005 23:45:15 GMT -4
I really do not, and never have, become a follower of "conspiracy theorists" who try and prove their point through selective editing and/or manipulation of photos/videos.I am not accusing anyone of trickery. I am criticizing the poor practices conspiracy theorists promote. My "cropping and enlarging" comment was directed at certain types of conspiracists. They promote a culture that rewards you not for developing an understanding of the context of each frame or photo, but by finding isolated features that give rise to the most suspicion. Cropping is one technique, but single or short sequences of frames isolated from their surrounding context can hinder understanding just as well. It not that this context is left out of posted images that is the problem, but that the context was not taken into account at all. What we have to take exception to is when their bad habits end up influencing analyses such as yours that try to be independent. The poor image anlaysis techniques they promote have led you away from a proper understanding of the Apollo 12 video, which I am sure is not what you set out to do. OK - I understand what you mean with this. I have tried to maintain my analyses within the overall context of what is occuring before and after the anomalous footage. If I were to "isolate" this without taking the overall progression into context, it could confuse or mislead those not familiar with the entire scope of the material. I have come to this forum because it affords me the luxury of not having to tediously describe the procedures being undertaken by those involved in the footage. If I wished to mislead or sway a group of people into "hopping on my bandwagon", there are certainly easier forums to do it on than here! I have no intention of doing what Bart Sibrel has been accused of doing, that is - extracting selected bits and pieces to create a false impression or flawed conclusion. Again, I urge all to view the online video to see for themselves that I have not "cherry-picked" parts to strengthen or favor my analysis and opinion. And to understand that I have not taken the footage out of the overall context or continuity.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 1, 2005 1:53:32 GMT -4
Enlargement also has its values and drawbacks. When you enlarge a portion of a photograph you reduce its detail and render it a collection of fuzzy blobs. Your mind goes nuts at this point trying to assign meaning to those blobs. Normally the interpretation of detail would cause your mind to reject the identification, but when detail is missing you begin to see arms and legs and Virgin Marys and office chairs. Your mind fills in the details that are lost in the fuzz. Real photographic analysts know about this and consciously avoid it. Amateurs are constantly tripped up by it. Photoanalysis is not just a guesswork free-for-all. There is a learned and practiced skill to it.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 1, 2005 1:58:46 GMT -4
What we have to take exception to is when their bad habits end up influencing analyses such as yours that try to be independent.
I agree with Joe.
Turbonium, you seem reasonable. That's refreshing. Please don't think we're trying to accuse you of anything. You're fun to talk to.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 1, 2005 5:27:07 GMT -4
Enlargement also has its values and drawbacks. When you enlarge a portion of a photograph you reduce its detail and render it a collection of fuzzy blobs. Your mind goes nuts at this point trying to assign meaning to those blobs. Normally the interpretation of detail would cause your mind to reject the identification, but when detail is missing you begin to see arms and legs and Virgin Marys and office chairs. Your mind fills in the details that are lost in the fuzz. Real photographic analysts know about this and consciously avoid it. Amateurs are constantly tripped up by it. Photoanalysis is not just a guesswork free-for-all. There is a learned and practiced skill to it. Actually, jay, I saw these things as an arm and chair and people without any enlarging, cropping, etc. That is why I had to single out this entire section of the video, because I honestly saw the arm and chair and people as plain as day the very first time I watched it online! Not enlarged or anything - just as it plays on the real video player at the size of the small stills I've posted here. The first time I watched it, I saw a color monitor, a swivel chair, and what looked like people below a black "drape". I was about to pause the video, because it was so bizarre to see these things. I wanted to replay it. But then I saw the "arm". I actually laughed as soon as I saw the "arm" drift into view - I honestly couldn't believe this was listed as a video clip from the moon! So I captured the entire video clip to my computer , since it was a streaming video. The objects that I see are still the objects that I saw the first time I watched the clip online. I haven't altered my view on anything due to any enlarging, enhancing, etc.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 1, 2005 5:31:07 GMT -4
What we have to take exception to is when their bad habits end up influencing analyses such as yours that try to be independent.I agree with Joe. Turbonium, you seem reasonable. That's refreshing. Please don't think we're trying to accuse you of anything. You're fun to talk to. Well, I'm sure my wife would tell you I have lots of bad habits, but being influenced by "conspiracists" isn't one of them! No worries, jay. I don't get paranoid so easily! I really enjoy these discussions as well - I have to pack it in - I'll be back tuesday- have a good long weekend!!
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 1, 2005 16:54:11 GMT -4
Actually, jay, I saw these things as an arm and chair and people without any enlarging, cropping, etc.
Fair enough. I'm not necessarily considering individual arguments at this point. What I posted was more of a general comment on how various methods of examination -- enlargement in this case -- historically affect the human aspects of photographic interpretation. Every so often I take an opportunity to speak generally if a specific example makes me think of it.
Photographic interpretation has to take into account how the eye, brain, and photographic technology interact to create meaning. It's part science, part art, and part pyschology. Deterministic, for the most part, but not as straightforward as assumed.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jul 1, 2005 22:57:08 GMT -4
I replaced the arm pic you posted with a more distinct, sharper frame for better comparison.Your version appears sharper only because the contrast has been blown out in it. It is missing information in the form finer shades of color. We will look at some of those in a moment. 1. The "arm" has distinct flesh tones that are quite different than the color of the folded mesh.Well, we would have to say that the "arm" in your version of the image does not exhibit distinct flesh tones unless it is severely sun-burnt flesh. We should expect color differences, however. The Apollo color television system does not reproduce colors the same way film does. The lighting is also different. The object in the video is lit with a single light source, whereas the antenna in the training film is more diffusely lit. 2. The mesh has very prominent "ribbing" folds which are not present in the "arm" in any of the frames.We should expect these types of differences too. The resolution of the television image is much lower than the film not only because of the electronic limitations of the video signal, but because the video camera was in motion, blurring some of the detail. The "arm" has a very smooth overall surface.Shouldn't the arm show veins and some hair and perhaps some skin blemishes? If your answer is that the resolution is too low, then you see my point about whey the ribbing might not be apparent. 3. The "arm" has characteristics, contours and shading which are in parallel to a human arm.
There are "knuckles " at the upper end, a narrowing down of the hand, and an elbow at the bottom of the forearm which is bent.Is that really the case? Let's take another look. The top part of the arm looks too flat to be a hand. There are bumps there, but they don't really look like knuckles. The lower right corner, marked with an arrow, shows structure that better matches the antenna. Plus, the very bottom is cut off with a distinct edge, which again, better matches the antenna: Antenna Comparison 3(By the way, it does seem that some ribbing is apparent in the two television images here.) The shape of the mesh (at least in this photo) is much like a folded umbrella - strapped in the middle and flared slightly out toward the bottom..
And of course, the "arm" doesn't have any strap visible in any of the frames, either.Look again for the cinching in the middle and the flaring at the bottom. Check this version too, taken higher up the "arm". Look closely at the bottom of the middle image, too. I think there may be some ribbing visible: Antenna Comparison 24. The overall diameter and length of the folded mesh appears to me much greater than the "arm".That seems to be a difference. The flight configuration of the mesh may be bunched up tighter and cleaner than the training configuration, which may have been through a few training cycles.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 1, 2005 23:37:01 GMT -4
Turbonium:
Just out of curiousity, what are the astronauts discussing in the video when "the arm" is on screen?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jul 2, 2005 11:27:54 GMT -4
When you enlarge a portion of a photograph you reduce its detail and render it a collection of fuzzy blobs. Your mind goes nuts at this point trying to assign meaning to those blobs.
Turbonium is taking our points here as disagreement that he really sees objects such as an arm, a chair, etc. or that he had to alter the photo somehow, such as enlarging it, before he could see those objects. Quite the contrary. We fully accept that he sees those things. I will even agree that the "arm" object in some versions of the image looks more like an arm in some respects than the antenna. Normally the interpretation of detail would cause your mind to reject the identification, but when detail is missing you begin to see arms and legs and Virgin Marys and office chairs.
Turbonium may also be taking these points as relevant only to the case of enlargement, but they are just as appropriate in any case where the image under question is low in detail. The Apollo 12 video, especially these sequences, are lower in detail than one may first realize. The reasons for this can be quite technical involving everything from the nature of vidicon tubes, the comm systems, the video conversion, to the MPEG compression process you described. I just barely understand it, yet I find myself at loss to be able to explain that little bit. (Your "this is not a pipe" discussions are turning out to be spot on here!)
It may be non-intuitive that often, the less detail there is, the greater variety of things you may see in an image. Speaking metaphorically here and not necessarily to mechanism, you can draw an analogy to a Google search where the detail available in the image corresponds to to the search terms you enter, and the hits returned by Google correspond to the descriptions you might apply to the image (or ways you might treat the image, etc.). The fewer search terms you enter, the more matches Google finds in its database, and the more hits you receive.
In other words, a low-detail image is ambiguous. You can describe it in a variety of ways. The temptation you have to resist is that the description of the Apollo 12 image as an arm is necessarily on equal-or even better--footing as the description that it is an antenna. What you need to resolve the ambiguity is more information--more search terms to Google on. The "learned and practiced skill" of the photoanalyst to describe photos well allows him to recognize the ambiguity and the requirement for additional information before a final judgment can be made. Your mind fills in the details that are lost in the fuzz.
Stated another way, we lack the ability to describe fuzzy images well. We each can describe them in a different way.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jul 3, 2005 5:30:05 GMT -4
...we lack the ability to describe fuzzy images well. In order to describe an abstract or unfamiliar shape to someone else, we must it relate it to something that the listener understands or recognises. We use terms similar to "like" or "a bit like" to help in our describing. I don't at all see a "bare arm" in the pictures. Certainly, the object has features that vaguely resemble those of an arm, but the proportions look wrong to me, and "looks like" doesn't mean the same as "is." Finally, Mr Occam forces me to settle for the folded antenna, which the shape looks more like than anything else. A very common hoax-believer argument is "Looks like x, therefore must be x." That's Harald's rorschaching.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jul 3, 2005 13:59:35 GMT -4
In order to describe an abstract or unfamiliar shape to someone else, we must it relate it to something that the listener understands or recognises. We use terms similar to "like" or "a bit like" to help in our describing.
Excellent point. Identifying something from sight alone is often a case of saying what reference group of objects it "looks like". This is exactly the skill we develop when we learn the word "chair", for example. We are shown and use a variety of chairs and practice applying our chair-using skills to other objects that resemble them. When we encounter a new object or image that contains features shared by chairs, we may classify it as belong to the group of chairs we are familiar with.
This strategy allows us to apply our chair-using skills to new objects. This strategy sometimes fails us, though. Our attempt to sit on what we took to be a chair might lead to an embarrassing collapse of the object.
Borrowing from Daniel Dennett, there are two opposing theories of perception, or at least, of how to talk about perception: "Filling in" versus "finding out". The "filling in" approach, which is by far the most common, and which Jay used above when he suggested turbonium's mis-identification of the chair was a result of the mind filling in details that were not in the original Apollo 12 television image.
One issue with that type of explanation (I may be beating up a straw man here, but bear with me), and one which I think should concern us, is that it neglects to stress the importance of skill in our discussions with conspiracists. What we want to be saying here is that turbonium's description of the object in the television image was not skillful, that his technique was faulty. What we would be saying with the "filling in" explanation, however, is that his description was skillful and his technique sound, he just happened to describe the wrong thing: Instead of skillfully describing the television image, he skillfully described a product of his mind that it filled in with details.
If I may contrive another example to highlight my point: Let's say you are a skilled piano player. I am not, limited to "Mary had a Little Lamb". We each try to play a Bach score somebody printed for us. You play it beautifully. After a day or two while I work out which keys I should press, I give a tortuous rendition, with missing notes, wrong notes, extra notes, and way off time.
The "filling in" explanation for my mis-performance of the printed score may go like this: Joe's mind altered the score on the page, in effect producing a different score. It replaced notes in some places and filled in notes in others. In light of such an explanation, I might be tempted to say, then, that, in fact, my rendition was even more skillful than yours. I, after all, perfectly played a score with a complex atonal melody and harmonic structure with intricate timing patterns, whereas you played something more conventional.
My performance, of course, was very unskillful. I need a lot more study and practice before I can play the printed score well.
It is not so much the case that when we see an arm in the Apollo 12 image that our mind "filled in" detail. After all, what we see doesn't change. We don't see anything added to the image such as arm hair and skin freckles. It is just that the general features in the image are the same general features of other arms we have seen. It takes more skill to note the more subtle features that distinguish it from an arm but that correspond to the antenna.
Finally, Mr Occam forces me to settle for the folded antenna, which the shape looks more like than anything else.
Plus, the "arm" image appears just as the camera pans in the very direction we see the antenna in in photos taken later. It is far more likely that any antenna-like object we see in this view direction actually is the antenna.
A very common hoax-believer argument is "Looks like x, therefore must be x." That's Harald's rorschaching.
Yes, but turbonium may have great success with his claim because the average person unfamiliar with Apollo and the natures of the images will be easily convinced. Soundly refuting turbonium won't help us much here. The problem is a lack of skill in the average person for this type of analysis. The only remedy to that involves effort on the part of the average person, but most people probably has more important things to devote time to.
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Jul 3, 2005 21:40:02 GMT -4
I guess my imagination is rather lacking since in all of the fuzzy, out-of-focus scenes I quite simply cannot make anything at all of them. They remain indistinct blobs to me.
It probably follows from my complete inability to see images in those multicoloured posters that were popular a few years ago(stare at this page long enough and you will see the sailboat). I could stare at the things for days on end and never see anything recognizable.
Odd that I can and do see recognizable shapes in clouds though.
|
|