Author Topic: Aulis "ray tracing" proof of secondary light source  (Read 2294 times)

Offline BertieSlack

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 168
Aulis "ray tracing" proof of secondary light source
« on: February 03, 2023, 09:49:08 AM »
Has anybody done a debunk of Luis E. Bilbao, PhD?

https://www.aulis.com/raytracing_as11.htm

I don't know much about photography, but to think you can draw lines on a photo and come up with measurements of light angles using the position of a shadow cast by an irregular shaped object at some distance without taking into account uneven terrain, foreshortening and the distortion of a wide-angle lens - too much surely?
« Last Edit: February 03, 2023, 10:37:13 AM by BertieSlack »

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1577
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: Aulis "ray tracing" proof of secondary light source
« Reply #1 on: February 03, 2023, 10:43:32 AM »
His analysis is difficult to get to grips with because all he seems to want to do is thrown equations around.

He refers to the ground not being level, but seems to make no allowance for it being uneven. He references the shape of the visor but then seems to forget about it when calculating Aldrin's shadow length.

As far as I can tell, all he's doing is drawing lines and giving it a fancy name.

Offline BertieSlack

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 168
Re: Aulis "ray tracing" proof of secondary light source
« Reply #2 on: February 03, 2023, 11:15:14 AM »
His claim that "shadows (including the analysis of shadows seen in the helmet reflection) are incompatible with a single point-like source of light" was particularly hilarious. Since when was the sun ever 'point-like'?

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1577
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: Aulis "ray tracing" proof of secondary light source
« Reply #3 on: February 03, 2023, 12:46:49 PM »
OK, reading between his many coloured lines, he first draws some lines to a point where the sun is, based on shadow direction and the object causing the shadow.

He then throws some equations salad around and draws some different lines. His equation salad is supposed to indicate where the sun might be instead of the perfectly reasonable guess he made at the start. He then does it again. Oh no, he says, the lines now all converge somewhere else but they don't join on to the shadows. His conclusion is not: "my assumptions are wrong" but "there is more than one light source". The lack of multiple shadows doesn't seem to be an issue for him.

He knows the angle to the sun from horizontal, because that's well known, but doesn't seem to be able to get the precise angle to Earth, which is also easily discovered, and instead throws some more equation salad around. Not once does he try the proper approach of "are my assumptions and calculations flawed" as a way of explaining the alleged anomalies his examination finds.

He makes much of the shadow lengths being different, despite the curved visor being at a completely different angle, and despite the fact that once you allow for the visor's curvature the shadow ends in the same place.

One thing he does draw attention to is the thing inside the yellow circle:



My guess it's some sort of lens flare artefact - it's definitely not a real thing.

He does a similar attempt at proving a single (but close) light source for an Apollo 14 image.

« Last Edit: February 03, 2023, 12:58:32 PM by onebigmonkey »

Offline Allan F

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 997
Re: Aulis "ray tracing" proof of secondary light source
« Reply #4 on: February 03, 2023, 01:10:30 PM »
His claim that "shadows (including the analysis of shadows seen in the helmet reflection) are incompatible with a single point-like source of light" was particularly hilarious. Since when was the sun ever 'point-like'?

As it is only half a degree across, it can be assumed to be a point source for most practical purposes. One thing you CAN see, is the edges of the shadows are very well defined, proving an approximate point-source light.
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 BertieSlack

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 168
Re: Aulis "ray tracing" proof of secondary light source
« Reply #5 on: February 04, 2023, 02:39:40 AM »
As it is only half a degree across.......

That's still enough to produce a noticeable penumbra, particularly towards the tips of long shadows when the sun is low in the sky.

Offline Peter B

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1261
Re: Aulis "ray tracing" proof of secondary light source
« Reply #6 on: February 04, 2023, 03:43:43 AM »
His claim that "shadows (including the analysis of shadows seen in the helmet reflection) are incompatible with a single point-like source of light" was particularly hilarious. Since when was the sun ever 'point-like'?

As it is only half a degree across, it can be assumed to be a point source for most practical purposes. One thing you CAN see, is the edges of the shadows are very well defined, proving an approximate point-source light.

Which means "yes for some cases and no for other cases" - perfect for sowing confusion if we're careless with explanations. And even if we are perfect, hoaxers can still accuse us of cherry-picking: "So is the Sun a point source or not?" That's hoaxer catnip.

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1577
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: Aulis "ray tracing" proof of secondary light source
« Reply #7 on: February 04, 2023, 04:32:43 AM »
OK this is back of an envelope stuff but...

I've taken an image from the photogrammetry of the landing site report here:

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11Photogrammetry.html#NewMap

and positioned a red dot at where Buzz is standing for the photograph. The yellow line is the actual sun path from roughly 88 degrees. Hopefully it's obvious from that the shadow from Buzz is entirely what you'd expect.



What he seems to be suggesting in his first set up is that the light source (ie the sun) is coming form a point 34 degrees or so from a datum that uses the direction from Neil to Buzz as zero (the blue line, derived from the photogrammetry map):



That matches very well with the actual sun direction of around 88 degrees from north (the yellow line) and the photogrammetry map.

What he then seems to be doing is picking a distant shadow, assuming a slightly different direction for the light, suggesting that there is an additional source some 10 degrees off from the original:



and then wondering why the shadows don't match up with that light source.

What he's proposing is physically impossible, and displays the traditional HB ability to think in 3 dimensions when confronted with a 2D image.

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1577
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: Aulis "ray tracing" proof of secondary light source
« Reply #8 on: February 04, 2023, 06:09:48 AM »
He also makes several calculations assuming that the LEVA, and the visor, are perfect spheres.

They aren't, as shown here:





So any reflections aren't going to conform to his calculations, particularly on the visor edges.

Original images https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/gold-visor-apollo-extravehicular/nasm_A20050453000