ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: Peter B on June 27, 2012, 11:21:15 AM
-
Over the years that I've discussed and investigated Apollo Hoax theories, I realise I've learned lots of little things that are useful in everyday life - like things about photography or driving on a dirt track. And tonight I was able to apply another useful little fact.
I remember some HBs being dismissive of the idea that Neil Armstrong's spacesuit could possibly reflect light into the LM shadow, or that the surface of the Moon itself could reflect light to illuminate the shaded side of Charlie Duke. But thanks to my knowledge of how these things occur, and my own observations, I know how well light can be reflected, even off supposedly dull surfaces.
Tonight I had to retrieve my oldest son's cochlear implants from his bedroom after he'd gone to sleep. I didn't want to wave a torch around in case the light disturbed him, but I knew the implants were near his clock, which has a bright face to act as a night light. The implants weren't visible in front of the clock so I assumed they were behind it. So I held the back of my hand up to the light of the clock, and my hand reflected enough light that I could easily see the implants, behind the clock.
I wonder if anyone else has had experiences like that?
-
But was the shadow cast by your hand parallel to the other shadows?
Skylab taught me it is ok for grown men to clown around in their underwear.
I've used the same reflected light trick but I learned that before reading about that hoax claim. Which is probably why I get so pissed when I read about it. How did grown-up people make it so far while being totally oblivious to their surroundings?
-
I wonder if anyone else has had experiences like that?
Yes, on both counts. As a photographer I routinely use my hand as a reflector for close-up or macro work. In fact, that's taught in photo school. And as an engineer I've worked on tools to automate the implantation of cochlear assistive technology, but that was many, many years ago. The cranial anatomy I learned serves well when I talk to JFK conspiracy theorists about the autopsy photos. :)
-
Photographers and cinematographers regularly use handheld white reflectors to fill in shadowed areas outdoors. How the hoaxers can claim Armstrong's bright white suit couldn't do that on the moon is beyond me.
I suspect the pictures don't really capture the subjective impression of actually being there, particularly the brightness difference between sunlit areas and the shadow side of the LM. This is because of the dynamic limits of film and simply because they changed exposures to compensate. Their eyes also compensated, but when you're there your brain still gets meta-information that someone simply looking at a photograph doesn't have. They'd have to know the exposure data for each photograph and know enough photography to know what it means.
We've all been disappointed by photographs that don't fully capture the subjective experience. For me, this is probably most true during a total solar eclipse. No matter how many pictures you see of them, there's nothing like seeing one in person.
-
I lit for the stage for about ten years before running into my first Apollo Denier. Also was involved in a bit of 3d rendering, video and photography. Getting involved in the discussion helped me to organize my mostly observational and empiric knowledge a little. One of the biggest "aha!" moments was after one of Jay's discussions of shadow-hiding I understood how to create a render model of velvet.
The nice thing about the hoaxies is they will ask things that send you out on your own little voyage of research and experiment.
I've been thinking more about such things as thermodynamics since getting involved in the discussion, and although it hasn't been of use to me at work or home yet, it has given me lots of fun moments of looking at a real-world situation and trying to reconstruct what is going on thermodynamically.
If I think of any other specific examples, I'll be sure to mention them.
-
The nice thing about the hoaxies is they will ask things that send you out on your own little voyage of research and experiment.
Exactly! I've learned a lot by researching answers to conspiracy claims, even if the conspiracists themselves never do.
I'm not above admitting that it's fun to win arguments. And it's especially easy here, because you know Apollo actually happened, so you know there's a valid explanation for every phenomenon even if you don't know what it is yet. And knowing that one exists seems to make it much easier to find.
I'm reminded of the saying that the only real "atomic secret" that the United States ever possessed was the knowledge that it was possible to build an atomic bomb, and we gave that one up on August 6, 1945. Once other countries knew it was possible, they found out how on their own much faster than we did when we didn't yet know it was possible.
-
Yes -- the best hoaxie questions of all are the ones that present a solvable mystery. Where you have to do some detective work and figure out "what IS happening in this (image, whatever)?" Those are a lot of fun.
(The only downside is the hoaxie themselves will only reply, "That isn't very convincing. But anyhow, what's really important is the fact that no stars...")
-
(The only downside is the hoaxie themselves will only reply, "That isn't very convincing. But anyhow, what's really important is the fact that no stars...")
I wonder how many times I've heard/read a variation on the phrase: "No matter how many things we point out, you guys (shills, sheeple) always come up with a way to explain it away, don'cha?"
Well... yes.
-
I have seen camera men use all sorts when they forget their reflector. Something white if possible is the question when asked can I find something. Blocks of polystyrene have been sighted in some crew cars. I have seen one that was covered in tin foil. Sometimes it makes it worse but they stick with it.
-
I have a sheet of silvered expanded polystyrene in my studio. One of the outgrowths of my study of lighting (both scientifically and artistically) is that no material is too humble to use as a reflector or diffuser. Sure, I have an array of purpose-made substances to direct light. But one of my favorite reflectors is the west side of my neighbor's house. It's painted a buttery light yellow and reflects broadly in the afternoon.
Legendary headshot photographer Kevyn Major Howard often uses a simple sheet of white posterboard under an actor's face to soften the shadows, working in natural light.
-
I'm trying to remember which famous recent movie it was that has an obvious goof involving the use of a handheld reflector. Whoever was holding it wasn't holding it steadily enough and/or the reflector was too specular. I would think that a big problem with an aluminum-covered reflector. You'd want something much more diffuse. Maybe it helps to crumple the foil first?
-
Yes -- the best hoaxie questions of all are the ones that present a solvable mystery. Where you have to do some detective work and figure out "what IS happening in this (image, whatever)?" Those are a lot of fun.
And almost every one of them does.
(The only downside is the hoaxie themselves will only reply, "That isn't very convincing. But anyhow, what's really important is the fact that no stars...")
Or they'll complain that this is just what the government says, as if anything the government says must automatically be wrong and anyone who agrees with them a "shill" (how I'm getting tired of that word.)
I think that if someone in the government were to say "2+2=4", some of these people would produce 12-part Youtube videos "proving" that 2+2 equals every number but 4.
-
Regarding accusations of being a "shill" or "government agent", these are so common among conspiracy nuts (almost universal, even) that this may give us some insight into how their heads work.
Even someone so seriously deluded as to believe the Apollo missions were faked, JFK was murdered by the CIA, 9/11 was an inside job, or airliners are deliberately spraying toxic chemicals, must have limits to what they can make themselves believe. I know I'm not a NASA or US government employee or contractor and have never been one. Do they really think that they, an anonymous crank on Youtube, can actually make me believe otherwise?
(During college summers I did get a paycheck from the State of Maryland as a public TV broadcast engineer, but I don't count that as 'government work'. Nobody seems to consider American state and local governments and agencies to be as evil as the US federal government.)
So they must have some other reason for saying it. One possibility is that it simply makes themselves feel better. By accusing their opponents of being shills, they think they can avoid having to address the substance of what is said. This is itself a fallacy (facts are facts regardless of who says them) but fallacies are their stock in trade.
Another possibility, since these are usually public forums, is that they're just playing to the audience. People do behave very differently in public arguments than in private ones; for one thing they're far less likely to back down. But I'm pretty sure I've been accused of being a shill even in private messages.
-
Heh. Sometimes I tell them I've worked for the state and for the feds. The latter was back when I was wearing green (okay, BDU -- it wasn't THAT long ago!) The state thing was a fluke...the theater I worked at was located in an unincorporated area of Alameda County, and was operated by an independent Parks and Recreation district directly managed by the State. So my little paycheck (very little, as it happens!) was signed by the comptroller of the state of California.
When I really want to scare the hoaxies, I tell them the Army trained me in demolitions (yeah..for about three weeks.)
-
When I really want to scare the hoaxies, I tell them the Army trained me in demolitions (yeah..for about three weeks.)
One retort to the "government shill" accusation I formulated a while back, but don't think I've actually used, is something along the lines of. "Oh, darn, your shrewd detective skills have found me out. Well, now that you've blown my cover, your IP address has been traced and an extermination squad will be there in the morning to process you. Sleep well."
-
One retort to the "government shill" accusation I formulated a while back, but don't think I've actually used, is something along the lines of. "Oh, darn, your shrewd detective skills have found me out. Well, now that you've blown my cover, your IP address has been traced and an extermination squad will be there in the morning to process you. Sleep well."
I play along with the shill accusation and admit to being paid $10 per comment. With most CTs, particularly the sort at YouTube, it is best to humour them when they show up. My favourite was stalkervision, whose account is now closed. Within one comment section on a video he presented the van Allen belt argument, and within a few comments he claimed that the crew of Apollo 8 saw UFOs as they orbited the moon but NASA covered the story up.
-
I'm trying to remember which famous recent movie it was that has an obvious goof involving the use of a handheld reflector. Whoever was holding it wasn't holding it steadily enough and/or the reflector was too specular.
"Aziz! Light!"
No, probably not.
I would think that a big problem with an aluminum-covered reflector. You'd want something much more diffuse. Maybe it helps to crumple the foil first?
Crumpling generally produces fine-grained caustics, not diffusion. My silvered reflector is bonded to the dimpled underlying polystyrene sheet, so it's reasonably diffuse but can still be too specular in detail. Most of the commercial metalized reflectors are "spun" in the sense that the metal is applied to a filament which is then knit or woven into a fabric. Honestly I think old-school Beta cloth would make a wonderful reflector. The newer formats change how the Teflon is applied, and result in a less lustrous finish. Sadly the spacesuits in From the Earth to the Moon were made from newer Beta cloth, not classic Apollo-era cloth.
-
Crumpling generally produces fine-grained caustics, not diffusion.
It's basically just a macroscopic version of diffuse reflection. Crumple it thoroughly enough and use it at a distance, and it can do the job. I've also used foil behind (that is, reflecting through) white paper in macro photography.
If that's not close enough to a Lambertian reflector for you, aluminized cloth seems like it could be problematically anisotropic, tending to spread the light along directions perpendicular to the thread. If you're really picky: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectralon
-
One retort to the "government shill" accusation I formulated a while back, but don't think I've actually used, is something along the lines of. "Oh, darn, your shrewd detective skills have found me out. Well, now that you've blown my cover, your IP address has been traced and an extermination squad will be there in the morning to process you. Sleep well."
I've seen that one used, but I've never used it because it could be seen as a threat. One thing I've learned about hoaxers is that they have no sense of humor about their delusions. None whatsoever.
-
My favourite was stalkervision, whose account is now closed. Within one comment section on a video he presented the van Allen belt argument, and within a few comments he claimed that the crew of Apollo 8 saw UFOs as they orbited the moon but NASA covered the story up.
I know he could be inconsistent and self-contradictory, but I don't think I saw him make this particular claim about Apollo 8.
No doubt the UFOs were just hallucinations caused by radiation poisoning. You know those flashes of light some of them saw? That wasn't even the beginning of it... :-)
-
I once warned a hoaxie about Fletcher and Munson, and the mysterious Doctor Haas (who has the uncanny ability to become undetectable to human hearing). He tried to report me to the webmaster for making threats.
-
Amusing.
I already knew what Fletcher-Munson curves are, but I actually didn't know about the Haas effect until just now when I looked it up.
Whenever I tell the hoaxers about Dunning-Kruger or psychological projection, they invariably start telling me that I'm an example...
-
I've seen that one used, but I've never used it because it could be seen as a threat. One thing I've learned about hoaxers is that they have no sense of humor about their delusions. None whatsoever.
Of course they don't, none whatsoever. There's no humour involved at all. After all they have disclosed the biggest fraud in the history of the human race. It's serious business.
-
Well, I think we should make a distinction. Hoax believers usually have little sense of humour. Those who actually create hoaxes often have too much.
So, when believers ask in outrage, "Why would anyone fake a UFO sighting?" the answer is often, "for the lulz". There was no profit motive, nothing deep and dark. Just they thought it would be funny to put candles in bags, and see what people made of them.
-
Amusing.
I already knew what Fletcher-Munson curves are, but I actually didn't know about the Haas effect until just now when I looked it up.
Whenever I tell the hoaxers about Dunning-Kruger or psychological projection, they invariably start telling me that I'm an example...
Doctor Haas has been my often-encountered nemesis.
Musician, "That monitor isn't on. I can only hear my guitar coming though my own cab which is 16" behind me."
Director, "That singer, who is 200 feet away from me and I can hear clearly? It doesn't sound like her voice is coming through the speaker so that means her mic is broke and you have to fix it now, now, now!"