ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: Apollo watcher on August 04, 2012, 04:23:38 PM
-
In the top photo at this website, http://www.clavius.org/a11rear.html Armstrong's shadow is off to the left. There is a website that claims that the photographer's feet should be directly under the center of the photograph, not off to the side. This issue is not addressed at the Clavius page. Is there a good counter to that argument?
-
The best counter is to do an experiment. Stand with the sun behind you and take some photos. Try directly down-sun, then turn slightly one way or the other and do it again, and so on. See what you get.
-
In the top photo at this website, http://www.clavius.org/a11rear.html Armstrong's shadow is off to the left. There is a website that claims that the photographer's feet should be directly under the center of the photograph, not off to the side. This issue is not addressed at the Clavius page. Is there a good counter to that argument?
This always seemed like a particularly weird claim. Why would they fake an astronaut taking a picture of his shadow, instead of just...having him take a picture of his shadow?
Anyway...think of what lines do in a perspective view with minimal lens distortion and a level camera, not tilted: Straight lines transform to straight lines. Parallel lines converge at a vanishing point at infinity, and radial lines meeting at a point under the viewpoint each project onto a vertical strip of the image. Armstrong's shadow follows just such a line. This isn't the ideal case: the camera is tilted and the ground is irregular, so the astronaut's shadow isn't precisely vertical in the image, but it's easily consistent with the officially claimed source.
Here's a stock photo showing similar geometry: http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-45404746/stock-photo-bright-path-with-converging-perspective-lines-on-a-winter-morning-with-a-person-walking-in-the.html
The photographer is standing on that path, pretty much on the shadow boundary of the grass to the left. This shadow line projects to a vertical line off to one side in the photo, very much like Armstrong's shadow in AS11-40-5961.
Also, it doesn't apply to this particular case, but hoax proponents often use heavily cropped images, which can produce some odd perspective effects.
-
It turns out that I have done that photo experiment, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:My_shadow_DSC1330.jpg
But I would like to have a source like Clavius.
Here is where the claim is made, see figure 14 (near the end of the PDF):
http://www.aulis.com/pdf%20folder/hadley_study.pdf
-
This neatly sums up the whole HB stance to me : Arguing a point that they could refute themselves simply by going outside and taking a photograph or just paying attention to their surroundings, same as they could the nonsense about 'missing stars', 'stage lights', 'reflections' and so on. If you can reproduce those effects on Earth with no special equipment, then you can discount a whole swathe of 'anomalies' and 'inconsistencies'. And yet they keep using the same tired arguments over and again.
-
Yes, but this is for a Wikipedia article, so it needs a source better than a blog.
-
it needs a source better than a blog..
Why? The Aulis site is nothing but a source of derision. The ignorance of even basic perspective, let alone all aspects of photography is revealed for all to see, and even the simplest of personal experiments - as you have shown - reveals their complete ignorance. Actually, it is wilful deceit, given the number of times they have been proven wrong.
Thing is, some things are so obvious that it isn't worth dignifying them with an article. Given this one can be shown as rank stupidity just by turning your camera slightly when shooting your own shadow... anyone taken in by that site is probably a lost cause.
-
It turns out that I have done that photo experiment, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:My_shadow_DSC1330.jpg
The you've done far more than most HBs. Post your picture up and challenge them to analyse it... and see what rubbish they come up with, assuming they deign to reply.
-
The you've done far more than most HBs. Post your picture up and challenge them to analyse it... and see what rubbish they come up with, assuming they deign to reply.
I'm not a HB. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog. It uses reliable references from other sources - not the editor's opinion or work. Clavius.org is cited as a reference several times. I'm looking for a reference that addresses the arguement in that PDF from Aulis.
-
This may be what you're looking for.
http://www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/0phase.htm
It doesn't tackle the "shadow not in centre" problem explicitly, but the third photograph on the page has an off-centre shadow of the photographer. You really don't need anything but that to refute the Hoax Believer's argument.
-
There is a website that claims that the photographer's feet should be directly under the center of the photograph, not off to the side.
So what?
-
So what?
It is mentioned in a Wikipedia article, without any counterargument from a reliable source. I would like to put in a counterargument from a reliable source.
-
I would like to put in a counterargument from a reliable source.
It might take a while, but try combing the internet. If you don't point the camera at the shadow, it won't be in the center of the picture. There must be a billion or so pictures out there that demonstrate this.
If you can provide multiple non-Apollo related examples, that should be as good or better than a reliable source. It's one of those things that's so obvious it's not likely to be mentioned in an article.
-
I'm confused. Is the HB argument that a photo can't be taken slightly off down-sun?
-
And this is why it really irritates me that Wikipedia requires online citations.
-
And this is why it really irritates me that Wikipedia requires online citations.
Does it? There are a number of references to print media around. The reference just has to be proper.
-
In the top photo at this website, http://www.clavius.org/a11rear.html Armstrong's shadow is off to the left. There is a website that claims that the photographer's feet should be directly under the center of the photograph, not off to the side. This issue is not addressed at the Clavius page. Is there a good counter to that argument?
Figures 2 and 4 on that page were specifically taken to refute that claim. Colin Rourke repeats (whether intentionally or not) a claim first made by Jack White and John Costella regarding this photo. There simply is no such "rule" of perspective as these men assert. They amply demonstrate they do not understand perspective and optical projection. As Rourke is no kind of expert in photographic analysis (as were neither White nor Costella) and does not provide any citation, demonstration, or argument of any kind in favor of his claim, there really is no point in providing more than a counter example to show his ignorance.
However in that there is nothing in the text to connect these counterexamples to any specific claim, it would be prudent for me to do so. And in the future, specific claims regarding the Clavius web site should be directed to the forum set up specifically for that, because I am notified immediately when activity occurs there.
-
However in that there is nothing in the text to connect these counterexamples to any specific claim, it would be prudent for me to do so.
Done.
-
Would you like me to move this thread to the Clavius section, Jay?
-
No, now that I've seen it there's no need.
-
And this is why it really irritates me that Wikipedia requires online citations.
I don't think that is the case.
-
I'm confused. Is the HB argument that a photo can't be taken slightly off down-sun?
The "reasoning" is that the photographer's feet must be directly below the center of the photograph, and the shadow on the left shows that they are not.
-
And this is why it really irritates me that Wikipedia requires online citations.
Does it? There are a number of references to print media around. The reference just has to be proper.
Right - the do not have to be online. In fact, I think paper references are preferred.
-
Figures 2 and 4 on that page were specifically taken to refute that claim.
Actually, to me, those two photos are addressing the "shadows not parallel" issue, right? Not the "feet of the photographer must be directly below the center".
-
Did you read the sections I added?
-
Did you read the sections I added?
Not yet. I'll do it now.
(later)
Now I have. That should do it, thanks. I've added it to Wikipedia.
-
Aaah, this comes back to Colin Rourke... :( I've got more interested now. For the sake of completion, does anyone think it might be worth addressing (in some detail), the following statement about that photo by Rourke? Most of it has indeed been well covered by Jay at Clavius (http://www.clavius.org/a11rear.html), but perhaps it might bear repeating here - and the 'perils of perspective' is a topic I have a particular interest in (partly generated through my addiction to very wide angle panoramas and the quite convoluted (pun intended) techniques required to stitch images together..)
Here's what Rourke said:..vertical must appear vertical on the photo and the shadow of the astronaut taking the photo must point back to his feet which are at center bottom..
What a load of rubbish that is. That throwaway claim is flawed, error-ridden and ignorantly simplified. Apart from being fundamentally incorrect, it relies on quite a few (invalid) assumptions and really applies only to one very specific case. It's actually quite difficult to get your shadow to point precisely at your feet - it's a pity Rourke didn't bother actually testing his 'hypothesis' (term used very loosely) - five minutes of use of any camera would have prevented this embarrassment.
BTW...
Am I correct that this Colin Rourke person still has an educational role in a tertiary institution (http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/maths/people/staff/colin_rourke/) (namely the University of Warwick)?
Am I also right that said Professor Colin Rourke no longer has anything on his website referring to these claims or linking to the PDF, in which he concludes (incorrectly) that this and other images are 'faked'? Yet the files themselves are still there?
(Hint - yes, I'm pretty sure I'm right.. :D)
I'm extremely tempted to email him to ask him if he still supports these claims, but perhaps that would be out of line.. (added - and it appears he has been contacted before (http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=theories&thread=2689&page=7#80161) but didn't feel inclined to debate his claims in public, so i doubt it would achieve much..)
Anyway, if Colin Rourke (surely the search engines will have enough for him to find this thread by now.. :D) is reading this, I invite him over to discuss and/or to add comments about his work in the PDF at Aulis that is obviously still being bandied about by Apollo deniers...
Prof. Rourke, it's OK to be wrong, as long as you admit it - perhaps now is the time..?
-
Sounds like one of those "Not only is it not right, it's not even wrong." claims.
-
A simple thought experiment disproving the claimed "rule of perspective": hold the camera level, pointed off to one side from the direction of shadow. Tilt it down until your feet are visible. Obviously, they're centered at the bottom of the frame, with your shadow pointing right to them, as the hoax claimers expect. But bring the camera back up toward horizontal...your feet will move far past the edge of the frame, and the shadow is obviously not going to continue to point at the bottom center.
And it won't just slide out of the field of view. In tilting the camera up toward horizontal, you are rotating it. This of course makes the view of the scene rotate as well. As the camera goes past level (with respect to the surface the shadow is cast on, assuming a flat surface), the shadow (the portion still visible) will rotate past vertical and tilt the other way, the shadow tilting away from the bottom center.
And this assumes there's only tilt to the camera, no roll. Given the camera mount, there will be little roll, but it won't necessarily be nonexistent.
-
Aaah, this comes back to Colin Rourke
BTW...
Am I correct that this Colin Rourke person still has an educational role in a tertiary institution (http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/maths/people/staff/colin_rourke/) (namely the University of Warwick)?
Am I also right that said Professor Colin Rourke no longer has anything on his website referring to these claims or linking to the PDF
Yes on both counts (Warwick and no link to it from his webpage).
-
Here are two photos I took the other day. The first shows a shadow along the left of the photo. The second one shows that the feet don't have to be below the center of the photo.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/judmccranie/7733597446/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/judmccranie/7733596444/
-
Okay, apparently I was misinformed. I've just heard complaints before, and I must admit that I don't pay the strictest attention to Wikipedia citations. If I'm going that in-depth, I usually do my own research.
-
Here are two photos I took the other day. The first shows a shadow along the left of the photo. The second one shows that the feet don't have to be below the center of the photo.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/judmccranie/7733597446/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/judmccranie/7733596444/
It's a little obscured by the uneven grass (it's been a rough summer on lawns...), but you also got a good example of the halo effect...the shadows of the grass in line with the camera and sun are mostly hidden behind the sunlit grass, while off to the side you see more of the shadows.
-
On the Moon they had a cloudless, unobstructed view of the horizon. I had to wait until the Sun was above the trees, and wait for an opening in the clouds. The Moon landings were done when the Sun was very low on the horizon, making the shadows long.
-
Here are two photos I took the other day. The first shows a shadow along the left of the photo. The second one shows that the feet don't have to be below the center of the photo.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/judmccranie/7733597446/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/judmccranie/7733596444/
Nice job. I especially like the second photograph because it shows not only your feet, but also your complete shadow.
-
Nice job. I especially like the second photograph because it shows not only your feet, but also your complete shadow.
My intention was to show the first one and for a person to tell me where he thinks my feet are (under the center). Then show the second one. They are taken with me standing in the same spot.
-
Here are two photos I took the other day.
Well done. That's the sort of demonstration I intended by Figs. 2 and 4 on the cited page, even though I argue several points from them. I specifically put the photographer's shadow along the left edge of the frame to show that Armstrong's shadow in the photo in question need not appear as Rourke insists.
-
Nice job. I especially like the second photograph because it shows not only your feet, but also your complete shadow.
My intention was to show the first one and for a person to tell me where he thinks my feet are (under the center). Then show the second one. They are taken with me standing in the same spot.
It is a good job.
I suspected the ubiquity of digital cameras would make this an easy HB claim to bury, but it lives on, even though the HB crew could easily disprove it themselves.
Permission to swipe your pics, sir? (Credited of course)
-
Permission to swipe your pics, sir? (Credited of course)
Sure. My name is Jud McCranie (as you can see from y flicker page).
-
I'm extremely tempted to email him to ask him if he still supports these claims, but perhaps that would be out of line..
Why would that be out of line? Any researcher who publishes his work implicitly invites comments and criticism. That just goes with the territory; scientific publishing is not one-way communication. He should also respond meaningfully and in good faith, though of course he's not obligated to agree, nor should he tolerate personal attacks or harassment. But when you put your name on something, you stand behind it. Anything less would be unprofessional.