|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 1, 2005 12:11:09 GMT -4
I think what you are refering to is two video clips that were used in a documentry. The producers claimed that one was from 16 and one 17, but in reality they were both taken from 16 and just a few minutes apart. The Hoax Proponents jumped n it and claimed it ws NASA's mistake when in fact it was the producers of the Doco who had nothing to do with NASA, just like the fake golf shot photo in Alan Shepard's book which several peple have claimed NASA created, and John Glenn's Space Walk photo.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 1, 2005 12:11:58 GMT -4
...created from two different photographs and then presented as a genuine record.'
It was created from several photographs, and it was never "presented as a genuine record." Aulis tries desperately to pin this on NASA, despite the fact that Shepherd's book was a private publication.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Oct 1, 2005 12:12:54 GMT -4
I understand that NASA did release photographs from two different "moon missions", which unfortunately showed identical foregrounds and backgrounds,despite the fact that they were supposedly taken several hundred miles apart. When pressed, they initially denied they were the same backgrounds, then admitted that they were, claiming to have "made a mistake". The mistake wasn't even NASA's The claim the photos were taken at different locations came from a third-party documentary; NASA had nothing to do with it. The mislabeling was simple human error. (Actually I think it was video, not photographs.)
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 1, 2005 12:16:38 GMT -4
The producers claimed that one was from 16 and one 17, but in reality they were both taken from 16 and just a few minutes apart.
Not exactly. The film is Nothing So Hidden produced by AV Films of Houston. They showed the same background in two clips from Apollo 16 that the narrator said were from two different days. In the original footage they are from the same day -- the same hour, in fact.
...John Glenn's Space Walk photo.
Rather Michael Collins'. Ralph Rene made the claim that the frontispiece of one edition of Carrying the Fire showed a faked photo from the spacewalk. He was correct in identifying the source of the photo as one taken in the Vomit Comet, but he is incorrect in assuming that the publishers of the book intended that to represent a spacewalk photo, and that NASA did the doctoring. Jim Oberg says he offered Ralph Rene $10,000 for any edition of the book that made those claims, and so far Rene has not produced one.
|
|
|
Post by lordoftherings on Oct 1, 2005 12:19:30 GMT -4
how come the zoom didn't affect the background. that is, only made the lm bigger
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Oct 1, 2005 12:21:21 GMT -4
Because he also changed his vantage point: like I said; get a camera and try it yourself.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Oct 1, 2005 12:23:57 GMT -4
I also understand that a photograph in Alan Shepard's book had been comprehensively proven to be falsified, by being created from two different photographs and then presented as a genuine record. This is what we're talking about, Margamatix, when we say you ignore our responses. The picture in Shepard's book is a fake, but it was not created by NASA or used by them.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 1, 2005 12:44:04 GMT -4
The photographer's shadow is NOt 100 meters away from the LM as claimed.
I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. But do be careful about trying to get a coherent notion of spatial relationships from a composite photo. You are correct in noting that the astronauts took pans, but this composite has been created digitally, likely not by NASA and perhaps not from photos that were taken as a pan. Theoretically any set of photographs in which the distant background can be "sewn" together property can be used to create panoramas.
I would appreciate it if you can find me an unshrunken photo of the pan shot.
Well, I have no idea where he got it. Sam Colby isn't very honest or thorough about reporting his sources. For all I know he made it himself; but I'm fairly certain I've seen it elsewhere.
I would appreciate it also if you further explain to me the fudicials role.
They provide a grid to help us normalize the size of the photos for photographic analysis, among other things. If you only have a portion of each of a pair of frames, you can use the fiducials to make those pieces of comparable size. You shrink or grow them until the distance between adjacent fiducials is the same in both portions. Of course this can be used on full-sized photos, but then you'd have the frame edges to help you too.
The fudicials are a little less than half an inch apart on the original transparencies. I don't have a metric ruler on me, but it wouldn't surprise me if they were 1 cm apart. But when you scan them on the computer you can scan them at different resolutions. And if you print them onto photographic paper, you can enlarge them to any size you want. You could make it so that the fiducials in the print were a foot apart, if you wanted a mural.
Do you mean that the photographer played with the fudicials so the lm seemed closer in the first pic and then changed them so the lm was bigger in the other pic?
Not exactly. You don't have to play with the fiducials to do that, you simply change the size of the photo -- say, by cropping it and enlarging the result. The fiducials allow us to detect that this has been done.
The problem with failing to make sure the copies of your two photos are at the same scale before making direct comparisons is that you'll draw exactly the kind of wrong conclusions about apparent and relative scale that the conspiracists are making. It's not necessary to use entire frames, but you have to do something to render them both to the same scale. If you're working directly with the transparencies then they're automatically at the same scale. But if you're working with prints or scanned JPEGs, you need to pay attention to the fiducials in order to study scale.
Jack White tried to argue that the mountains in his photos were different sizes. That's because he used the apparent size of the LM as a reference. He just changed the size of one of the photos until the LM was the same size in both. That's not appropriate.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Oct 1, 2005 12:57:09 GMT -4
how come the zoom didn't affect the background. that is, only made the lm bigger The zoom increased the size of everything in the photo just as it would if I enlarged the image in Photoshop. The reason the box appears larger in comparison to the LM in the bottom photo is because as I moved the camera away my distance from the LM increased proportionately larger than my distance from the box. Here’s an example: Let’s say in the first photo the camera is 1 foot from the LM and 5 feet from the box. If I move the camera back 5 feet it is now 6 feet from the LM and 10 feet from the box. The camera’s distance from the LM increased by a factor of 6 while its distance from the box increased by a factor of only 2. Therefore the LM will appear 1/6 its previous size and the box 1/2 its previous size. If I used a 4X zoom (or enlarge the photo 4 times), then the LM will appear 2/3 the size it did in the first photo and the box will appear 2 times larger than the first photo.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 1, 2005 13:30:16 GMT -4
Ugh. Well, I skimmed the assembled panorama shots in ALSJ for Apollo 17 and didn't find the photo in question. But I looked through all the color images of Apollo 17 and I'm fairly sure that the rightmost segment of the pan is taken from AS17-147-22495. It's the only one that has that particular outline of the shadow, and the key foreground rocks. www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS17-147-22495I'm guessing the left segment comes from AS17-147-22517. www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS17-147-22517The middle comes from AS17-147-22518. www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS17-147-22518Here's the key photo -- one that doesn't appear in the pan: www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS17-147-22494That is a true representation of the relationship between the astronaut's shadow and the LM's shadow. The relationship in the pan is artificial. But look at the tip of the LM's shadow on the left edge. Above it you can see three rocks at the boundary between the dark foreground and the light mountain face. This was at the beginning of the pan. The assembled pan is slightly misleading because you naturally assume the frames were taken in order from left-to-right or from right-to-left. In fact the rightmost segment was taken first, then the left one -- 22 frames later -- and then the center. But go back and look at that same set of features in -22518 above. The rocks are in a slightly different position relative to the tip of the LM shadow. And the relationship between the rocks themselves is slightly different. This is what we would expect from parallax if the photographer had taken several steps to the right during the course of taking the pan. Not only is this proof positive that these photographs were taken in an extensive, fully 3-D environment (not backdrops), but it makes it difficult to "sew" the photos together into a panorama. When you look very closely at the rightmost section of the pan, you notice it has been ever-so-slightly distorted in order to get it to "fit" the ridgeline. We cannot, in fact, be sure that the scale was normalized between these segments during the assembly of the panorama. But part of your answer is that these photos were not taken from exactly the same vantage point, and the Photoshoppery required to get such photos to "fit" into a panorama has distorted the relationship between the photographer's shadow and other elements of the scene. The moral is that you should never use assembled panoramas for image analysis unless you rigorously validate it as a true representation.
|
|
|
Post by jones on Oct 1, 2005 13:50:38 GMT -4
marg - you are kinda going off on a tangent..
|
|
|
Post by lordoftherings on Oct 1, 2005 14:01:58 GMT -4
But part of your answer is that these photos were not taken from exactly the same vantage point, and the Photoshoppery required to get such photos to "fit" into a panorama has distorted the relationship between the photographer's shadow and other elements of the scene.
The moral is that you should never use assembled panoramas for image analysis unless you rigorously validate it as a true representation.
i am sorry Jay, but I have asked Eric Johnes about each photo. Only one photo was slightly cropped. I looked at the email and the pan photos were taken, according to him, from the same point. I will double check this, but until now, the photo is not faked or taken from different distances. Only one photo was slightly cropped, i.e only cropped and not resized, which is the 21st photo. By the way, I want to review your site, bcz, when you normalized the scale and said that now they didn't form an anomaly, I was not convinced. Let me look at it and return back to you.
|
|
|
Post by lordoftherings on Oct 1, 2005 14:40:58 GMT -4
Hi again having reviewed the site, I can see what you mean. I trust Bob's experiment, so I sent a mail to Colby. Let us see what he says.
Meanwhile, I want to say something that irritated me. One of the replies on Photos of Armstrong, one of the members said that the stonemountain is 3kms away from the lm, and that a ridgeline is hiding the 3kms. I just find that unbelievable. (look up the Apollo15 photo in APOLLOSCAM)
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 1, 2005 14:49:20 GMT -4
Why don't you consult a traverse map? There are accurate photographic "overhead" maps of the area in the mission report.
As to getting an answer or correction out of Colby, I've been barking up that tree for five years.
I have asked Eric Johnes about each photo. Only one photo was slightly cropped. I looked at the email and the pan photos were taken, according to him, from the same point.
Well, Eric usually asks me these kinds of questions. If you show him the parallax evidence I pointed out to you, you might find he'll agree with it.
|
|
|
Post by lordoftherings on Oct 1, 2005 14:54:51 GMT -4
Why don't you consult a traverse map? There are accurate photographic "overhead" maps of the area in the mission report.
Are you saying that the mountain is not 3kms away from the LM? Phantomwolf ,who was speaking there, provided a map and said it is over 3kms away. He said also that a ridgeline hides the foreground. I find that absurd
|
|