|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
30th July 2018, 10:19 AM | #1 |
Dental Floss Tycoon
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,371
|
Any Previous Investigation of This Aulis Article?
A conspiracy theorist needed to change the subject when it was proved that he was wrong about the 16 mm DAC footage of the Apollo 11 LOR (shown at 24 pfs, but shot at 1 fps), so he linked to this September 2016 Aulis article.
http://www.aulis.com/scientific_analysis.htm Now I know that Aulis is a crap-show full of "experts" with highly dubious credentials, but I thought I'd see if anyone had done a thorough investigation of the claims made in the link, or even some of the claims made therein. |
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone. |
|
30th July 2018, 01:07 PM | #2 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
|
I don't/won't go to aulis ever again, but tell me in the readers digest what the claims are?
|
30th July 2018, 02:39 PM | #3 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,830
|
It's a veritable gish gallop of claims, mostly doing a lot of digital manipulation of electronic images to find digital artifacts that suggest multiple light sources and alteration of the images.
The first claim relates to an Apollo 17 image (AS17-134-20384) claiming that the Earth is superimposed on the image, even going so far as to claim that the astronaut part is originally greyscale. Whilst out of focus, the weather patterns on Earth are entirely consistent with the date taken, and I have versions of the image in hard copy pre-dating Photoshop by some distance showing the image in color. The next bit looks at an Apollo 11 panorama that has beenprimitively assembled https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11.1103147_mf.jpg They conclude that use of image editing tools to smooth out the background sky has been done to hide lights, rather than to make it look better. There's a whole bunch of nonsense about Apollo 12 images where lens flares and the like are interpreted as something else. The last part is hilarious - they use Google Moon to try and produce 3D elevation models showing things that just aren't there, and that the some features would not be visible from specific viewpoints. My own analysis generating 3D surface models from more reliable data says something completely different! It would be better to look at a specific claim being made rather than waste precious heartbeats on all of it |
__________________
Facts are simple and facts are straight, facts are lazy and facts are late, facts don't come with points of view, facts don't do what I want them to. ************************** Apollo Hoax Debunked |
|
30th July 2018, 03:15 PM | #4 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
|
I have an acquaintance at both apollohoax.net and CosmoQuest, namely One big monkey that has downloaded digital data from the LRO and developed 3-D maps around Mount Hadley/Rift that give a very striking resemblance to a panorama from A15.
Tweaking the image parameters sounds like Jack White's attempt to disprove the Apollo missions. This sounds like OLD attempts that have been debunked far better than I could. Besides it is from aulis a known site for bogus claims to everything concerning Apollo. Many of the authors have been downright deceitful in their presentations. Thanks for the observations. |
30th July 2018, 06:55 PM | #5 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25,301
|
This claim about multiple light sources is one that just needs to die.
The claim holds that the reason for shadows being non-parallel is due to multiple light sources, but this claim fails on it face because every light source casts its own shadow. Firstly, multiple light sources MUST result in multiple shadows Secondly, every shadow MUST have some part of it "filled" with light from one of the other light sources. There is simply no way to avoid it. If someone faking Apollo EVAs were using several light sources, all the photos, and every frame of every film would need to have the additional shadows "dodged", and the remaining shadows "burned" in the "filled" parts. Example of effect from shadows cast by multiple light sources |
__________________
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong. Its TRE45ON season... convict the F45CIST!! |
|
30th July 2018, 08:51 PM | #6 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
Same old nonsense. They fiddle with a few sliders randomly in Photoshop, come up with something that looks strange, and declare it to be this or that piece of the hoax.
|
31st July 2018, 12:31 AM | #7 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,830
|
Yeah that's me lol I finally settled on a consistent nom de web some time after joining here!
If anyone wants to compare what I've done with what has gone on at Aulis I have this page: http://onebigmonkey.com/tuts/tuthome.html Which is part a debunking anti-moon hoax site and part tutorial to show people that they can quite easily get hold of images from a variety of space agencies and do interesting things with them. Each Apollo page on that micro-site has links to downloadable 3D models built using data from a variety of sources. Another way of verifying that Aulis really have made an utter mess of their interpretation of the ground surface at Hadley and Taurus-Littrow is to look at the LRO map site http://target.lroc.asu.edu/q3/?mv=eqc&mcx=0&mcy=0&mz=1 which has a tool that allows you to draw a line across the surface that will be converted into an elevation profile. People need to stop being passive recipients of the garbage these people put out and actually start doing their own leg work. Time and time again conspiracy nuts will turn up at Apollohoax or CosmoQuest or wherever and spend their whole time arguing by copy and paste rather than by any kind of effort of their own. That's one of the reasons I made the site above showing people how to produce their own 3D models! Returning to the Apollo 11 panorama, another reason they conclude that there must be multiple light sources seems to be that the light source is slightly different in each image. It doesn't seem to occur to them that the angle of the light source is different because the astronaut has rotated slightly to make each element of the panorama. As I said earlier, it would be more useful to see if a specific claim is being made based on the Aulis article - it's too much for any sane mind to bear to have to read the entire thing! |
__________________
Facts are simple and facts are straight, facts are lazy and facts are late, facts don't come with points of view, facts don't do what I want them to. ************************** Apollo Hoax Debunked |
|
31st July 2018, 01:53 AM | #8 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25,301
|
|
__________________
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong. Its TRE45ON season... convict the F45CIST!! |
|
31st July 2018, 04:04 AM | #9 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
|
|
1st August 2018, 10:58 AM | #10 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 7,051
|
I always wanted to compliment you on your website, threadworm. Absolutely fantastic job (for anybody who hasn't seen it I recommend it highly)! Sadly, I see that you took down all of your "bicycling through the English countryside as viewed by my crotch" videos since I was there last! I thought, perhaps, you uploaded them to deliver a final "nuclear option" end to the moonhoaxers. Oh, the horror! And that rolling shutter ...
|
2nd August 2018, 10:06 AM | #11 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 10,589
|
My immediate reaction, when I first encountered the multiple light source claim, probably decades ago, was that it was one of the dumbest things I'd ever read, because if there were multiple light sources, there would be multiple shadows. Apparently there is only one light in Mom's basement, so moon landing deniers have never experienced what really happens with multiple light sources.
|
3rd August 2018, 06:04 AM | #12 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
|
I attempted to engage with a HB "Photography Expert" a couple of years ago concerning the images. He was somewhat verbally abusive since I am not a photograph buff and told him so, it was almost "beneath" him to engage with him. I asked if there were multiple light sources, "Where are the multiple shadows?". His comment was anyone that had any photography experience would "know" what was wrong with the images(or words to that effect) and was the last comment to me.
|
3rd August 2018, 06:23 AM | #13 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
One of the original Aulis contributors, David Percy, was allegedly a photographer -- fellow in the Royal Photographic Society and everything. He put together a set of "Photo Rules" that he said genuine photos have to follow. If any of those rules is broken, you know the photo is fake. This is one of the ways he proposed to tell that the Apollo photos were faked. He originally published his findings in the Fortean Times and was roundly lambasted by readers. Undaunted, he wrote it up again as one of the early chapters of the book Dark Moon that he wrote with Mary Bennett.
Needless to say, his "rules" were ludicrously wrong on the subject of the directions of shadows. He used a few fairly dishonest tricks such as forced perspective to argue that "shadows should be parallel" if cast by the sun. In one case he showed a photo of some tree shadows evidently taken in St James Park in London. Except to "emphasize" the parallel directions of the shadows, he'd drawn lines on the photo. The lines were certainly parallel, but the shadows he'd drawn the lines over (thus obscuring them) were not. He made the mistake of using the same photo elsewhere in the book without the lines. Back in that day Aulis ran a guestbook as a sort of blog that I and a few other early hoax debunkers contributed to. One day I pointed out on the blog that a different picture on page so-and-so of Dark Moon that was used to illustrate one of Percy's "photo rules" quite clearly broke the parallel-shadow rule. It was a photo showing how we should allegedly see no detail in the shaded sides of objects, but -- having been taken from an angle where the sun shown fairly down the optical axis -- also cast shadows that were obviously not parallel in the least. The next day the blog was taken down, disappeared entirely. This is the honesty of the people at Aulis. They don't know the faintest thing about photography or photo analysis, but they sure want to make sure they don't get caught lying. |
3rd August 2018, 01:35 PM | #14 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25,301
|
I have expertise on three sides of photography; I am a photographer with over 40 years experience (first as an amateur, then professionally), I process my own film (B&W, C-41 & E6), and I repair cameras too (at least film cameras anyway), so I understand their internal workings.
I have found that whenever I attempt to debate HBs who claim to be photographic experts, it doesn't take long before they ignore me. When they realise they are talking to someone who understands the subject as thoroughly as I do, and who will not be fooled by their BS, they stop taking my calls. ETA: Here's a couple of examples: An HB once claimed that I didn't know what I was talking about. All I had to do was go outside and photograph some shadows and I would see that if the sun was the only light source, the shadows would be parallel. So I showed him this; and then to emphasize the point... this; The HB stopped replying to my posts. Another HB posted this photo, as "proof" that Apollo was faked because it "proved" that two light sources were used.. .. I said something to the effect that 'actually, the photo proved that only one light source was used, and that if there were two light sources used, the photo would look more like this' After I posted that? Crickets! |
__________________
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong. Its TRE45ON season... convict the F45CIST!! |
|
4th August 2018, 06:42 AM | #15 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
|
You know photography, but alas I don't, so when if they start talking about F-stop's etc. I am a bit lost.
But I do know that shadows are not parallel from ground level, nd terrain will affect the "direction" of the shadows on the ground. Plus what we all have said multiple light sources will have multiple shadows regardless. |
9th August 2018, 12:08 PM | #16 |
Uncritical "thinker"
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 31,644
|
For a bit of humour - and because it is the level of the actual moon CTs
http://www.pigeonsnest.co.uk/stuff/n...n-landing.html |
__________________
OECD healthcare spending Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|