Apollo Discussions > The Hoax Theory
Shadow Analysis by a PHD.
TexMex:
Over on aulis.net, there area few articles where the author is a PHD in Physics.
http://aulis.com/raytracing_as11.htm
http://www.aulis.com/raytracing.htm
In some ways it's the usual ""shadows are not parallel", but in other ways it's very technical and well thought out.
I have sent email to the author at his university email address and confirmed he did write them. (please don't dig up his dress and email him) I am exchanging emails with him and attempting to have a civilized conversation about it.
I am posting it here to see if I can get some help teasing out the problems in the paper.
bknight:
Anything that is published at aulis is 100% BS. They have no science, just "PhD"'s that purport to have discovered anomalies in the Apollo program. Don't waste your time, I suspect his doctorate is questionable at best. What accreditations does his Alma Mater have? What is his doctorate in?
I'm not going to watch anything again at aulis, since they won't allow comments about any subject presented, why do you think this is? Are they afraid to stand up to criticism of their work?
Please post the image number from the ALSJ and include what remarks are associated with them.
Zakalwe:
Non parallel shadows here. I must have faked this photo*
*I didnt.
peter eldergill:
But you*must* have faked it. There can be no other explanation ;D
JayUtah:
--- Quote from: TexMex on January 11, 2019, 11:29:55 AM ---Over on aulis.net, there area few articles where the author is a PHD in Physics.
--- End quote ---
I doubt that. Aulis has been notorious for more than 20 years for hosting or relying upon mostly-anonymous experts whose credentials either cannot be determined, or which can be determined to be false or irrelevant. If the author wishes us to take him seriously as an expert, he will need to provide the customary substantiation of his qualifications.
Further, "physics" is a vast field. If the author wishes us to accept a doctoral degree in physics as qualification to perform photogrammetric rectification on a photograph as a means of testing the authenticity of photographs, he will need to show specific evidence of adjudicated research or other expertise in that narrow field. I do not accept claims to a PhD in physics as simply an assurance that the author is a very smart person who has probably got the right answer, regardless of subject. Photogrammetric rectification is not a subject taught to physics students at any level. It is a practical skill one must learn aside from that, proficiency in which must be separately demonstrated.
--- Quote ---http://aulis.com/raytracing_as11.htm
--- End quote ---
The method here is generally correct. But the author provides no error analysis to determined how precisely he can locate critical points on the shadows in the photograph. Instead he attributes all error in the result to a question of authenticity. This is entirely unscientific.
--- Quote ---http://www.aulis.com/raytracing.htm
--- End quote ---
The method here is incorrect.
--- Quote ---In some ways it's the usual ""shadows are not parallel", but in other ways it's very technical and well thought out.
--- End quote ---
No, not really. The standard for "well thought out" in the sense of coming from a physics professor is the ability to provide the appropriate scientific controls, which here are completely absent. It's just "shadows are not parallel" with a whole lot of dazzling math thrown in to make the audience think the author is well-qualified. The author may have the degree he purports, but there is little if any scientific rigor in the two papers. This is probably why he has elected to publish them in a venue where they will probably not be examined closely or questioned.
--- Quote ---I am posting it here to see if I can get some help teasing out the problems in the paper.
--- End quote ---
I intend no offense, but it's my opinion that asking us to supply you with arguments for a debate you are having with someone else, whom you forbid us to contact directly, is improper.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version