ApolloHoax.net

Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: Scott on June 23, 2016, 01:29:06 PM

Title: A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images
Post by: Scott on June 23, 2016, 01:29:06 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. 
Title: Re: A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images
Post by: JayUtah 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.
Title: Re: A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images
Post by: Allan F 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.
Title: Re: A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images
Post by: Scott 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.
Title: Re: A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images
Post by: JayUtah 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.
Title: Re: A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images
Post by: Scott 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.
Title: Re: A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images
Post by: Scott on June 23, 2016, 03:50:53 PM
How about this guy?


Do you think he doesn't exist?
Title: Re: A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images
Post by: JayUtah 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.
Title: Re: A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images
Post by: JayUtah 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.
Title: Re: A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images
Post by: bknight 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.
Title: Re: A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images
Post by: JayUtah 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.
Title: Re: A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images
Post by: Willoughby 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".
Title: Re: A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images
Post by: JayUtah 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.
Title: Re: A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images
Post by: Willoughby 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.
Title: Re: A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images
Post by: JayUtah 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.
Title: Re: A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images
Post by: Kiwi on June 30, 2016, 04:36:47 AM
The biggest flub of the article 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).

In my opinion the biggest blunder in the article is that the many stereo pairs that were deliberately taken by the astronauts on the moon were not analysed, leaving us to wonder whether the author even knew or cared that such pairs were taken.

Sure, most of them were taken of rocks less than two metres from the camera, both before and after removal as samples, so they do not show distant backgrounds, but there are possibly some that might indeed show distant, but out-of-focus, scenery.

The author says in one of his captions:
Quote
Fig. 25. A stereoscopic pair of AS15-85-11424 and AS15-85-11449; view of Rima Hadley...

There's no way 11424 and 11449 are stereo pairs, but they do show a background that looks very much the same because it is far more distant than the author claims.

AS15-85-11424 was part of Jim Irwin's first Station 2 pan and taken at 122:38:47.

AS15-85-11449 was taken 38 minutes 28 seconds later (at 123:17:15) as part of Irwin's second Station 2 pan at a different location. The foreground is quite different.

Here are just a few genuine Apollo 15 stereo pairs as listed in the ALSJ.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/frame.html
Our "Russian friend" might get slightly more realistic results by analysing some of them after reading their captions and studying the actual journal around the times given:

AS15-82-11093... 165:07:15 Cross-Sun from the north of the first Station 9 sample.
AS15-82-11094... Dave stepped to his left to get this stereo companion to 11093.

AS15-82-11098... Cross-Sun from the north of a Station 9 sample location.
AS15-82-11099... Dave stepped to his right to get this stereo companion to 11098.

AS15-82-11105... 165:10:27 Cross-Sun "before" from the north of the "big one" at Station 9. Note Jim's shadow across the top of the picture.
AS15-82-11106... Dave stepped to his left to get this stereo companion to 11105.

AS15-82-11149... 165:52:40 Jim moved in closer to get this down-Sun of the layered, partially buried boulder.
AS15-82-11150... Jim stepped to his left to get this stereo companion to 11149.

AS15-82-11185... 166:21:59 This is the lefthand member of a stereopair Jim took of the 4-to-5 foot Station 10 boulder with large vesicles.
AS15-82-11186... 166:21:59 Jim stepped to his right to get this stereocompanion to 11185. Eric Nelson has produced a red/blue stereoview of the right-hand portion of the boulder.

AS15-85-11441... 122:59:24 Down-Sun "before" of the comprehensive sample at Station 2. We can see Jim's SCB in his shadow. He is carrying the rake. Dave is standing at the left, taking cross-Sun pictures AS15-86-11567 and 11568.
AS15-85-11442... 122:59:24 Jim has stepped to his right to take this stereo companion to 11441. We can see from the position of Dave's legs that he has turned toward the Station 2 boulder to get "locator" AS15-86-11569. Note that Dave's tongs are stuck in the soil near the boulder.

AS15-86-11536... 122:21:35 Cross-Sun "before" from the north of the third Station 1 sample site.
AS15-86-11537... Dave stepped to his left to get this stereo companion to 11536.

AS15-86-11558... 122:54:12 Cross-Sun "after" of the Station 2 boulder from the uphill side. Note the blue tint of the rock exposed by the removal of the foreground sample. Note that Dave also collected a sample from the top of the rock, directly in front of the tongs.
AS15-86-11559... Stereo companion to 11558, giving a slightly better view of the upper sample location.

AS15-88-11870... 164:03:40 The Apollo 15 Index of 70 mm Photographs (MSC January 12, 1972) describes 11867-71 as showing a "microfilm cassette" taken at Station 8 - Jim's trench at the ALSEP. I am not convinced that Jim took the photos at the ALSEP site but suspect that he took them near the LM after Dave drove off at about 164:03:40. Previously, I had thought that Jim decided to walk out to the ALSEP site because he did not want to waste time getting his seatbelt on. However, it is possible that he also wanted a bit of time to put out the items he was going to leave on the Moon and take documentation photos.]
[In his book To Rule the Night, Jim wrote "There were a number of things we left on the Moon purposely. I left some medallions, flat pieces of silver with the fingerprints of Mary and our children. And as a result of a letter that I got two months before launch, I also left a small portrait of J. B. Irwin. A young lady sent me a picture of her father, J. B. Irwin, saying that he had talked about his desire to go to the Moon all his life. He died a seventy-five, before the first manned landing. I thought it would be a gracious gesture to take J. B.'s picture and leave it on the Moon."]
[In addition, a 28 June 2005 an inquiry to Colin Fries of the NASA Headquarters History office by a writer in Oregon, Sierra Jenkins, brought to my attention an article from the October 2, 1971 edition of The Bulletin, a newspaper published in Bend, Oregon ( 1.2 Mb PDF ). Jim Irwin and other Apollo astronauts did geology field training near Bend on various occasions. According to the newspaper article, during one of these trips Jim met Floyd E. Watson, a building inspector in Bend who, in 1971, sent Jim a "small sliver of Central Oregon lava which I hope will be able to deliver to the Moon for me." The article then mentions a letter Watson received from Irwin in late September, stating "I did carry your sliver of lava to the moon and left it there. I took a picture of the location" The picture, which accompanies the article, is 11870. The inscription appears to be in Jim's hand.]
[Jim took five pictures, AS15-88-11867 - 71 of what are undoubtedly the various items he left on the Moon. Frames 11870 and 11871 form a stereopair. On 15 July 2005, Mike Gentry and Susan Erskine at NASA Johnson provided high-resolution scans from original film of the two frames. The images are slightly out-of-focus and while preparing to make an anaglyph, Andy Chaikin applied the Photoshop Sharp Unmask function to the images and noticed that the object at the lower left, which Jim had turned over after taking 11869, is a black-and-white picture of "an elderly man, balding, with shirt and tie". I had re-read Jim's book the previous evening and was able to remind Andy about the J.B. Irwin story. Given that Jim obliged J. B. Irwin's daughter's request, I am inclined to believe that the Watson story is true. In a detail from 11870 with Sharp Unmask applied ( 655k ), I have marked what I believe is the rock fragment Jim was indicating in the inscribed photo reproduced in The Bulletin.
AS15-88-11871... 164:03:40 Jim stepped to his right and turned to his left to get this stereo-companion to 11870. Andy Chaikin has provided a red-blue anaglyph of 11870 and 71.

AS15-90-12223... 145:33:47 Jim's down-Sun of the first Station 7 sample shows Dave at the right taking his cross-Suns, which are AS15-86- 11662 and 11663.
AS15-90-12224... 145:34:52 Jim has stepped to his left to take this stereo companion to 12223. Dave has finished his pictures and has the tongs open in his right hand. Note the sample bags hanging from the bottom of his camera. Ron Wells has provided a detail ( a15det12224.jpg ) showing Dave's watch. Ron writes that he increased the contrast in the lefthand version and used a contouring program to search for edges in producing the righthand version. A group of ALSJ Contributors see the watch reading either 9:08 to 9:10 or 10:08 to 10:12. Readers can make their own assessments. On the assumption that Jim took 12224 just before his reply to Dave at 145:34:52, the time in Houston is about 10:09 CDT on the morning of 1 August 1971.
Title: Re: A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images
Post by: onebigmonkey on June 30, 2016, 05:23:12 AM
Well you learn something new every day!

(http://i67.tinypic.com/5u4h7a.jpg)
Title: Re: A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images
Post by: bknight on June 30, 2016, 07:21:21 AM
Well you learn something new every day!

(http://i67.tinypic.com/5u4h7a.jpg)
Ok, what are you showing?
Title: Re: A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images
Post by: onebigmonkey on June 30, 2016, 02:09:15 PM
Ok, what are you showing?

See above :)

Quote
a black-and-white picture of "an elderly man, balding, with shirt and tie"
Title: Re: A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images
Post by: bknight on June 30, 2016, 02:30:52 PM
Ok, what are you showing?

See above :)

Quote
a black-and-white picture of "an elderly man, balding, with shirt and tie"
Ok, this went right over my head, I'm confused. :-[
Title: Re: A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images
Post by: onebigmonkey on June 30, 2016, 03:10:35 PM
Ok, what are you showing?

See above :)

Quote
a black-and-white picture of "an elderly man, balding, with shirt and tie"
Ok, this went right over my head, I'm confused. :-[

It's in Kiwi's post about Apollo 15's stereo pairs :)
Title: Re: A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images
Post by: Willoughby on June 30, 2016, 04:48:20 PM
Ok, this went right over my head, I'm confused. :-[

https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21668921541/in/album-72157658592471809/

Jim Irwin took this photo of various things he left on the moon on Apollo 15.  The photo above is zoomed in on a partial photograph he left on the moon - as described in the above post by Kiwi.  "onebigmonkey" was just showing the photograph being discussed - and specifically the portion containing that photo of the old bald man!
Title: Re: A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images
Post by: bknight on June 30, 2016, 05:39:44 PM
Ok, this went right over my head, I'm confused. :-[

https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21668921541/in/album-72157658592471809/

Jim Irwin took this photo of various things he left on the moon on Apollo 15.  The photo above is zoomed in on a partial photograph he left on the moon - as described in the above post by Kiwi.  "onebigmonkey" was just showing the photograph being discussed - and specifically the portion containing that photo of the old bald man!
Ah those long posts I tend to speed read skipping much of the detail, so I missed that.
Thanks
Title: Re: A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images
Post by: bknight on June 30, 2016, 05:43:55 PM
And Jim Irwin after leaving all those mementos on the Lunar surface  was allegedly going to spill the beans to hoaxster Kaysing.  ROTFLMAO. (and the Blunder believes this?) ::)
Title: Re: A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images
Post by: JayUtah on July 01, 2016, 12:40:52 AM
Fun fact:  Irwin graduated from the high school just a few blocks from my house, which is the same high school that is featured in the movie High School Musical.
Title: Re: A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images
Post by: nomuse on July 01, 2016, 10:43:07 PM
Oh, the shame!