Author Topic: A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images  (Read 5100 times)

Offline Scott

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 28
  • BANNED
I did a search on this and nothing came up so I think it's ok to start a thread on it.
http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm

I don't have a high technical background but it looks to me like the guy is right.  Let's hear some analyses of this.  I'm mainly posting this for the viewers so they can decide for themselves. 

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2979
    • Clavius
Re: A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images
« Reply #1 on: June 23, 2016, 01:49:21 PM »
I don't have a high technical background but it looks to me like the guy is right.

He is not, and there is already a discussion of it here on the forum.  Did you read the forum before posting?

Quote
Let's hear some analyses of this.  I'm mainly posting this for the viewers so they can decide for themselves.

If your goal is to empower undecided viewers, then you should have kept your uninformed opinion above to yourself.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Allan F

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 847
Re: A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images
« Reply #2 on: June 23, 2016, 02:56:55 PM »
I did a search on this and nothing came up so I think it's ok to start a thread on it.
http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm

I don't have a high technical background but it looks to me like the guy is right.  Let's hear some analyses of this.  I'm mainly posting this for the viewers so they can decide for themselves.

It is a load of nonsense. In order to be in any way usable for stereoscopic comparison, the pictures have to be taken with the lens of the cameras PARALLEL to each other, in order to overcome the difference in distortion between the center and the edge of the picture.
Well, it is like this: The truth doesn't need insults. Insults are the refuge of a darkened mind, a mind that refuses to open and see. Foul language can't outcompete knowledge. And knowledge is the result of education. Education is the result of the wish to know more, not less.

Offline Scott

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 28
  • BANNED
Re: A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images
« Reply #3 on: June 23, 2016, 03:21:27 PM »
Quote
  If your goal is to empower undecided viewers, then you should have kept your uninformed opinion above to yourself. 
That's not a scientific attitude.  If a layman sees something he's not sure about, it's perfectly ok for him or her to post it and ask for feedback.

Actually, I am pretty sure those are backdrops but as I have no background in this, I'm not going to say much.

It's pretty much commen sense and the fact that the guy who did the study has a PH.D.

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2979
    • Clavius
Re: A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images
« Reply #4 on: June 23, 2016, 03:42:57 PM »
That's not a scientific attitude.

It is eminently scientific.  Are you now claiming to be a scientist?  You drew a conclusion before you made a proper study.  And you want to have your cake and eat it too -- you want to insinuate that this is valid research (it isn't), but you don't want to bear the burden of defending it because you don't understand it.  To purport a conclusion prior to study is scientifically dishonest.

Quote
If a layman sees something he's not sure about, it's perfectly ok for him or her to post it and ask for feedback.

But it's not okay for him to opine that the thing he's not sure about is legit.  He either knows or he doesn't.  You can either endorse or ask, but not both.

Quote
Actually, I am pretty sure those are backdrops but as I have no background in this, I'm not going to say much.

Either make claims and defend them or don't make the claims.  Don't make a claim and then announce you won't discuss it further.

Quote
It's pretty much commen sense...

Asked and answered:  "common sense" (i.e., marginally informed intuition) is not evidence.  Science was invented exactly to combat the wrong decisions attributable to "common sense."

Quote
...and the fact that the guy who did the study has a PH.D.

The guy who did the study doesn't exist.  This is a new trend in conspiracy claims in several genres:  referring to Russian academics with allegedly advanced degrees, but who have no trace in either Western or Eastern academic literature aside from the conspiracy-related articles.  Aulis is notorious for making up "experts" who don't exist.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Scott

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 28
  • BANNED
Re: A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images
« Reply #5 on: June 23, 2016, 03:47:03 PM »
Quote
  The guy who did the study doesn't exist.  This is a new trend in conspiracy claims in several genres:  referring to Russian academics with allegedly advanced degrees, but who have no trace in either Western or Eastern academic literature aside from the conspiracy-related articles.  Aulis is notorious for making up "experts" who don't exist. 
This may turn out to be true but you haven't proven it.  It may turn out that he exists and that he has a PH.D and that he did that study.

Offline Scott

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 28
  • BANNED
Re: A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images
« Reply #6 on: June 23, 2016, 03:50:53 PM »
How about this guy?


Do you think he doesn't exist?

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2979
    • Clavius
Re: A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images
« Reply #7 on: June 23, 2016, 03:51:34 PM »
This may turn out to be true but you haven't proven it.

You're the one claiming the article was written by a person who indeed exists and who has a Ph.D.  It's your burden to prove he exists and has the qualifications attributed to him, if you want his writings to be taken as those of an expert.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2979
    • Clavius
Re: A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images
« Reply #8 on: June 23, 2016, 03:52:52 PM »
How about this guy?

This is the second time you've trotted out this guy for an irrelevant topic:  first radiation and now stereoscopic imaging.  Do not Gish Gallop.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2709
Re: A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images
« Reply #9 on: June 23, 2016, 03:58:02 PM »
...
It's pretty much commen sense and the fact that the guy who did the study has a PH.D.
Post a citation for this allegation, I can't find one.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2979
    • Clavius
Re: A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images
« Reply #10 on: June 23, 2016, 04:08:22 PM »
Do you think he doesn't exist?

No, I don't think that.  But I do think he's pretty clueless, and that this would be a better topic for one of the rover-dust threads, not the stereoscopic imagery thread.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Willoughby

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 83
Re: A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images
« Reply #11 on: June 23, 2016, 04:34:40 PM »
There is no evidence that OLEG OLEYNIK, the "expert" who is credited with being the author of the article you wrote, exists.  It cannot be proven that someone doesn't exist.  You are the one implying this person exists, and it would be VERY easy to provide evidence that such a person exists.  All searches I have performed either link directly to the article you linked - or to a forum discussing this article.  There is no other mention of this person, so unless you have something I haven't seen, assuming the person does not exist is a fair conclusion to draw until you show otherwise.

As for the claims made in the article, as someone has pointed out, they are nonsense.  It is impossible to draw such conclusions because in order to make a REAL comparison of distances using parallax, the camera orientation of each photograph must be known, and the exact distance between each photograph must be known.  Neither is provided anywhere in the article.  This way you can rule out or isolate things like barrel distortion of lenses.  In the comparisons made, it is very likely that parallax cannot be measured at all because the photographer didn't actually change positions between shots; he merely panned the camera to the left or right from the previous photograph.  We don't know.  The article does not say (nor did NASA keep such records of precise relative locations between all shots unless they were specifically for 3D compositing - which none of the photos in the article were to my knowledge).  You're not going to be measuring ANY parallax in the event that the photographer did not move between shots, but merely panned.  The difference in tha background in tbat case is due to the background being in a different portion of the image circle, and therefore subject to varying degrees of barrel distortion - which is something that occurs on ALL lenses to some degree, and the article does not mention the lenses used nor the effect of barrel distortion on that particular lens.  No mention at all that it's even a consideration.  Something an "expert" would most certainly include in such an article.

Furthermore, at one point, the article compares two images that are KNOWN (and acknowledged to be IN the article) to be taken out of a series of panoramic shots.  This is where you would stand in the SAME SPOT, and simply take a series of photos while basically spinning in place.  Panning a little farther each time.  There will be no difference at all in the background between two frames OTHER THAN barrel distortion.  So the article is comparing two images that are KNOWN to be taken from the exact same location; just panned slightly differently, so it should have been KNOWN to the author that the ONLY possible explanation for the difference in backgrounds between two pictures taken from the SAME location is due to barrel distortion of the lens.  The author makes no mention of this as even a possible cause, when it is in fact the ONLY possible cause because there is no parallax to be measured in two photographs KNOWN to be taken from the exact same spot - just panned differently.

It's all nonsense.  It's an excellent demonstration of someone blatantly butchering well-known concepts, and of course those who want so badly to believe that the landings were faked who know NOTHING (and in your case, ADMITTEDLY nothing) about the science involved get mesmerized by the complicated-sounding notions, and just fall so easily for them.

TL;DR : There are no conclusions to be drawn from the analysis of the photographs regarding parallax because the author has left out information that is critical to the analysis (orientation of the camera; exact distance between the two vantage points).  In at least one analysis, the author compares two photographs the HE ACKNOWLEDGES came from a panoramic series, which means the photos were taken from the same location; only panned differently - in which case there would be no parallax, and the only explanation for the distortion of the background is from the lens of the camera.

A proper parallax analysis would include the lens used - analysis of the lens so that barrel distortion could be eliminated or isolated, orientation of the camera when the photographs were taken (relative to each other) and the location of each photograph (relative to each other).  None of that is done.  It's literally a guy who understands nothing about parallax layering two photos on top of each other, and saying, "Look at that!!!".  Make up a name, and put "P.H.d." behind it, and people like you just fall to pieces over it.

Nonsense.

If this person exists, it would not make his article any more credible.  It's still nonsense for the reasons above.  The point is just the lengths some hoaxers will go to propagate the hoax.  If the person is real, I'd be surprised if his credentials have anything to do with parallax.  At best, the argument is an appeal to authority.  And that's the best you could possibly do.  You'd have to prove the guy's existence just to be upgraded to "fallacious argument".
« Last Edit: June 23, 2016, 04:47:27 PM by Willoughby »

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2979
    • Clavius
Re: A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images
« Reply #12 on: June 23, 2016, 04:54:42 PM »
There is no evidence that OLEG OLEYNIK, the "expert" who is credited with being the author of the article you wrote, exists.
...
As for the claims made in the article, as someone has pointed out, they are nonsense.

This is a fairly common ploy at Aulis.  The desired behavior is that someone reads the article and accepts its conclusions, and assumes it to be authoritative because it is attributed to an expert.  Aulis does not desire that the reader understand the content of the article to the point of disputing it, nor that the identity and credentials of the author be investigated.  It's the "Bill Wood" ploy, or possibly the "David Groves" ploy.  The point is that they've been caught before in exactly this kind of misrepresentation.

It is parsimonious to note that the content here is nonsense, and that the author has no verifiable expertise.  Taken together, it's a fairly obvious bluff.

Quote
A proper parallax analysis would include the lens used - analysis of the lens so that barrel distortion could be eliminated or isolated...

Or simply known.  Photographs of standard acuity charts will work.  We can curve-fit what we need in order to factor lens distortions into a parallax computation.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Willoughby

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 83
Re: A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images
« Reply #13 on: June 23, 2016, 05:10:54 PM »
Or simply known.  Photographs of standard acuity charts will work.  We can curve-fit what we need in order to factor lens distortions into a parallax computation.

This is what I meant.  Included in the analysis should be an analysis of the lens to isolate (or compensate for) barrel distortion or an "already performed" analysis.  SOMETHING addressing lens distortions.  They aren't even mentioned as a contributing factor when they most certainly are - as you are obviously aware - and any "expert" analyzing the photographs SHOULD BE aware.

The biggest flub of the article in my opinion is taking two photographs that are known to be very likely taken without moving, but only panning and comparing the backgrounds - in which case there should be no parallax at all, and any distortions in the background can only be attributed lens distortions (unless someone can think of something else). The lack of any mention of barrel distortion as a contributing factor and compensating for it in some way - using already performed and known analysis of the lens or otherwise - makes the parallax analysis impossible to be even remotely conclusive.  It would be like finding a man at the bottom of the lake and claiming he died of a heart attack without considering the possibility that he drowned.

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2979
    • Clavius
Re: A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images
« Reply #14 on: June 23, 2016, 05:46:08 PM »
This is what I meant.

Indeed; I was hoping to elaborate upon method.  Lenses generally don't have high-order variations in projective properties.  Hence with a standard chart it only takes a few control points in each dimension to derive a lens model.  It's a low-order mathematical entity.  But it differs enough from lens to lens that we need to actually do the work.

Quote
They aren't even mentioned as a contributing factor when they most certainly are - as you are obviously aware - and any "expert" analyzing the photographs SHOULD BE aware.

Acutely aware.  This type of analysis begins and ends with the lens model.  We teach projective geometry initially with a constant projector (a first-order function).  That's the point at which much of this pidgin analysis derives -- not just by this guy, but by everyone who claims parallax issues prove a hoax.  The next pass through projective geometry treats projection as a higher-order function that can describe lenses actually used in the field.

Quote
The biggest flub of the article in my opinion is taking two photographs that are known to be very likely taken without moving, but only panning and comparing the backgrounds...

Agreed.  It's very rare that something purporting to be a rigorous analysis ends up debunking itself.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams