The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Was This Apollo Photograph (AS14-66-9306) Really Taken On The Moon?  (Read 15807 times)

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8130
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
The way things seem is not the empirical method, check these out some time man....
 

Quote from: wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence
Empirical evidence ... is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

Empirically {by observation} the double crosses only occur on images with flare, so consistent with an in-camera phenomenon , rather than a product of image manipulation which would not be specific to images with flare.

Also your illustrations in reply #24 do not show a surface curving in two planes, (similar to a lens) , which is what would be required to create the extra crosses which consist of arcs.  A lens-shaped surface is required somewhere to create the extra crosses which have radial-[pincushion]-distortion , there is such a thing in the camera.

For anyone who's interested here's my final word on the matter ...

The mechanism : the image of the very bright flare spot on the Reseau plate in the camera, (which has black crosses on it) , is reflected by a rear element in the lens, back onto the film creating a second set of black crosses which have radial [pincushion] distortion.

The reflected image of the black crosses is visible because they are dark lines in a patch of bright fog created by the reflected flare spot , (think Bat-Signal).

[ The contrast in the double-cross examples is very low consistent with fogging : the original orthogonal cross is washed-out-grey rather than opaque-black like the typical appearance of these "fiducial" marks].
« Last Edit: 28/06/2014 07:55:23 by RD »
 

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 311
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: RD
Empirically {by observation} the double crosses only occur on images with flare, so consistent with an in-camera phenomenon , rather than a product of image manipulation which would not be specific to images with flare.

Refuted.... What you're asserting to be a likely byproduct of your theory playing out is, in reality, a perfectly ordinary optical mechanism playing out, and the proof of that is clearly seen in my photographic example. It simply shows that for an opaque object (or reticle) to cast a detailed shadow onto a surface (or film), it must be located between a light source and whatever the surface is that it's casting a shadow on. A direct light has to be shone on an object to cause a detailed shadow of it to be cast on a surface....


For example, when the light source is either out of frame (below left) or behind the camera (below right), only diffuse light will be entering the camera lense's field of view. If the same NASA photograh had been taken with the light source out of frame or behind the camera, the only incoming light would have been diffuse, so no shadow of the reticle in the image. Diffuse light (as anyone can tell you who's been out on a bright overcast day) won't cast a detailed shadow unless the object is very close to or in contact with the surface....



What's actually seen is a distinct curvature of the darker upper distorted crosshairs and a lighter flat shadow of them that's symmetrical in appearance, and the two images (below) are characteristically indistinguishable from one another....


Quote from: RD
Also your illustrations in reply #24 do not show a surface curving in two planes, (similar of arcs. A lens-shaped surface is required somewhere to create the extra crosses which have radial-[pincushion]-distortion , there is such a thing in the camera.

Refuted.... What you're asserting, that only a lense shaped surface could have created the effect, can also be accomplished in other ways, and the proof of that is clearly seen in my photographic example that precisely matches in appearence the distorted crosshairs and the shadow they're casting in the NASA photograph.... and my photographic example was provably accomplished with both a surface (a thin flexible transparency overlay) and an optical mechanism (the printed reticle on the transparency overlay) that doesn't appear, behave or operate anything like a lense or mirror, even as it precisely replicates what's seen in the NASA photograph....


So, the real problem I have with your theory is the complete lack of any supporting evidence or proof for anything you're saying about it. No clearly elucidated proposed mechanism (source system) or any precedent setting example (analog model) is given that demonstrates even one unique feature (shared property) identically exhibited by both the NASA photograph (target system) and your proposed mechanism (source system) that backs up your claim/assertion of common characteristics (behavioural correspondences).

Quote from: RD
The mechanism : the image of the very bright flare spot on the Reseau plate in the camera, (which has black crosses on it) , is reflected by a rear element in the lens, back onto the film creating a second set of black crosses which have radial [pincushion] distortion.

Refuted.... The mechanism you're describing there actually has exclusively to do with a bright light source's ability to overcome the low reflectivity of a camera lense and impose itself visibly in an image, and to do that it has to be glary.... A black opaque object (or reticle) cannot be illuminated brightly enough to partake of the same mechanism that a bright light does in overcoming the low reflectivity of a camera lense. To prove that's incorrect, just post a photograph of a black opaque object being so brilliantly illuminated by the Sun that it's actually glary to look at and I'll take that back.   

Quote from: RD
The reflected image of the black crosses is visible because they are dark lines in a patch of bright fog created by the reflected flare spot , (think Bat-Signal).

Your latest example proves that, compared to the distorted reticles seen in the photograph of the LEM, the Bat-Signal can periodically be seen from in and around Gotham City. Seriously though, it's a poor analogy because your example consists of a bright light shining up and away from the camera lense into the atmosphere, not shining directly into the camera lense like in the NASA photograph.... apples and oranges really.

   

Quote from: RD
[ The contrast in the double-cross examples is very low consistent with fogging : the original orthogonal cross is washed-out-grey rather than opaque-black like the typical appearance of these "fiducial" marks].

Speculation.... If that was the case and you recognized it as that, it means you must have seen it before. If you've seen it before, you should've posted an example of something that convincingly mimics the effect seen in the NASA photograph. You didn't, so it's just unsupported speculation, and mere speculation can't displace a verifiable photographic example that precisely matches in appearence what's seen in the detail from the NASA photograph.

To summarize....

....You haven't provided any kind of demonstrably fact based or clearly stated proposed mechanism (source system).
....Without any demonstrably fact based or clearly stated proposed mechanism (source system), you can't produce any verifiable precedent setting example or replication (analog model).
....No verifiable precedent setting example or replication (analog model) means you can't show any unique features (shared properties) identically exihibited by both the NASA photograph (target system) and your proposed mechanism (source system).
....Because you can't show any unique features (shared properties) that both the NASA photograph (target system) and your proposed mechanism (source system) exhibit identically, you're unable to convincingly establish any meaningful connection (behavioural correspondence) between the NASA photograph (target system) and your proposed mechanism (source system).
....All of which tends not to support your theory or proposed mechanism.   

In contrast....

....I did present a demonstrably fact based and clearly stated proposed mechanism (source system).
....With a factually based and clearly stated proposed mechanism (source system) in hand, I was able to produce a verifiable photographic example in the form of a precise photograhic replication (analog model).
....Being able to produce a verifiable photographic example (analog model) meant that I was able to note multiple unique features (shared properties) identically exhibited by both the NASA photograph (target system) and my provenly realistic proposed mechanism (source system).
....Because I was able to note multiple unique features (shared properties) exhibited identically by both the NASA photograph (target system) and my verifiable photographic example (analog model), I can very convincingly assert that a meaningful connection (behavioural correspondence) exists between the NASA photograph detail (target system), my provenly realistic proposed mechanism (source system) and the verifiable photographic example (analog model).
....All of which tends to strongly support my assertion that the photograph's appearance is the result of a transparency overlay lifting up and away from the image surface in the photograph of the LEM purportedly taken on the Moon.

Only a fool would trade a provenly fact based mechanism and analog model with multiple matching unique features/shared properties and a solid one-to-one behavioural correspondence with the photographic evidence for a poorly formulated unproven theory.

Sorry man, but pending the emergence of some other more plausible interpretation of the evidence, the photograph (and by extension the series it's part of) was not taken on the Moon.






« Last Edit: 01/07/2014 02:06:27 by Aemilius »
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8130
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Maybe you'll get it if I use your diagram , ( but I doubt it ).

A very bright flare spot created by the sun hits the Reseau plate which has the black crosses on it . The image of this very bright spot on the plate with black crosses on it is reflected by the rear element of the lens, back onto the film, which creates extra crosses which have pincushion distortion because they have been created by reflection from a curved (lens) surface ...

« Last Edit: 01/07/2014 10:50:47 by RD »
 

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 311
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
I reproduced the scenario (I notice you reversed the reticles to fit the perspective in your "diagram", nice touch).  I get what you're talking about. You're saying pretty clearly really that in the schematic arrangement below (A), while the light that passed through the lense did cast a normal shadow of the crosshairs on the suface (B), an incident of sun flare also occurred, and that the sun flare is responsible for the image of the crosshairs being relected by the lense back down onto the surface below (C), and also that a fog of glare explains the lightening of the normally dark appearance of the symmetrical lower set of crosshairs, hence consistent with an in-camera phenomonon and not photographic manipulation.... essentially you're saying this completely explains the appearance (D) of the distorted/symmetrical double crosshairs seen in the detail of the photograph from NASA.


Your problem is that you don't have any proof of your theory's viability, there's no real world analog model given that shows any unique features/shared properties with your theory or the NASA photograph and nothing that confirms what you're sayiing reflects real world conditions. I have proof of my theory's viability, a photographic analog model that perfectly reflects real world conditions and precisely replicates the appearance of the detail from the NASA photograph....


And all of it corresponds to a simple ordinary optical mechanism playing out....


You just go on and on explaining but not proving. It's pretty simple man, if you can't produce some kind of analog model that reflects real world conditions and bears out what you're saying.... you're just way out there in left field on this.
« Last Edit: 03/07/2014 05:21:12 by Aemilius »
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8130
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile

Your diagram above has the cross aligned on the optical-axis of the lens.
In that special-case the effect Iíve described would not produce an obvious second cross :
with the cross on the optical-axis, the second cross, via reflection in the lens,
would have the same centre as the first cross and would not suffer any curvature,
( it would just be slightly bigger than the first cross, but would be perfectly aligned on top of it ).

With radial-distortion, like pincusion distortion , the further you go from the optical-axis the worse it becomes.

If you try redrawing the diagram as if the cross was about halfway between the centre of the film and a corner of the frame , (as in AS14-66-9306 ) , maybe you'll see mine is a valid hypothesis ...



Such reflections from the Reseau plate , to the rear of the lens , and back through the Reseau plate onto the film, will occur every-time a photo is taken with this camera. Each reflection loses ~99%, so the double-reflection which gets to the film is approx 1/10,000* the original brightness : usually too dim to register on the film, and only becomes visible when that part of the image is very bright, like a flare-spot from the sun which is still visible even after it's brightness has been reduced by a factor of 10,000.

[ * 1/10,000 approximates to reduction of about 13 EV , aka -13 stops ].
« Last Edit: 03/07/2014 11:38:03 by RD »
 

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 311
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: RD
Your diagram above has the cross aligned on the optical axis of the lens.
In that special-case the effect Iíve described would not produce an obvious second cross :
with the cross on the optical-axis, the second cross, via reflection in the lens,
would have the same centre as the first cross and would not suffer any curvature,
( it would just be slightly bigger than the first cross, but would be perfectly aligned on top of it ).

Do you expect anyone to buy that? Do you have any proof of anything you said there? Where's an example man? I don't see any of the scientific method in anything you're going on about. You just keep explaining without demonstrating or proving anything.   

Quote from: RD
With radial-distortion, like pincusion distortion , the further you go from the optical-axis the worse it becomes.

We've already been over the misapplied principals of optics thing a while back.... Don't you remember? You weren't able to verify or demonstrate one single thing that bore any resemblance whatsoever to the NASA photograph.

Quote from: RD
If you try redrawing the diagram as if the cross was about halfway between the centre of the film and a corner of the frame , (as in AS14-66-9306 ) , maybe you'll see mine is a valid hypothesis ...

It doesn't matter how things are arranged, it won't produce the observed effect. If it could, you would have posted an example by now and we wouldn't be having this conversation. No, all this arrangement will do is cast an ordinary shadow of an object on a surface....


There is no Black-Opaque-Object-Lense-Flare-Like-Mechanism. You seem to be presenting your "explanation" as being factual, but there's nothing there, you haven't provided one shred of solid credible evidence that suggests anything you're saying is true. So, as far as the validity of your hypothesis goes.... What is there to validate?  It would be a far fetched idea even with no other proven theory available, but the fact is that there is a proven theory available that fits like a glove and raises the bar even higher, because  anyone who disagrees will now not only have to just show some example/analog model that vaguely implies the effect seen in the NASA photograph, but also replicate/falsify my precise replication of the target system (the NASA photograph) as well.

The reality is that the odds of your mechanism or whatever it is actually playing out and coincidentally producing a result that's literally indistinguishable from an ordinary shadow of the reticle being cast (my photographic example/analog model) must be astronomical.... Maybe Dr. Calverd could calculate that for us.

You pretty much seem to just dismiss an iron clad anolog model/photographic example that shares multiple obvious unique features with the NASA photograph under real world conditions, even as you continue to make multiple unfounded assertions in support of a vague theory/hypothesis that, in comparison, shares no obvious behavioural correspondence or unique features with the NASA photograph under real world conditions in any way similar to my model that closely matches observations and appears precisely the same as what's seen in the photograph....


Honestly, how could anyone in their right mind looking at that possibly opt instead to pursue and actively promote an unprovable theory/hypothesis involving some magical unknown optical mechanism?

Quote from: RD
Such reflections from the Reseau plate , to the rear of the lens , and back through the Reseau plate onto the film, will occur every-time a photo is taken with this camera. Each reflection loses ~99%, so the double-reflection which gets to the film is approx 1/10,000* the original brightness : usually too dim to register on the film, and only becomes visible when that part of the image is very bright, like a flare-spot from the sun which is still visible even after it's brightness has been reduced by a factor of 10,000.

More of the same, no proof/verification of anything.... Where's an example? There's nothing of the scientific method in anything you're going on about that demonstrates or proves anything.... That I don't get.
« Last Edit: 08/05/2016 16:42:38 by Aemilius »
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8130
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
It doesn't matter how things are arranged ...

The arrangement does matter : the angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection.

Reflection of the Reseau plate by the edge of the lens will be deflected more (radially) than reflection from the centre of the lens because the lens is acting as a curved mirror , not a flat one.

... hypothesis involving some magical unknown optical mechanism? ... Where's an example?

That reflection from a curved mirror has pincushion-distortion is known by anyone who has used a shaving (or make-up) mirror which magnifies : the image becomes increasingly stretched towards the edges of the frame

As I've mentioned previously, glass always reflects and refracts light hitting it.
So a glass lens always acts as a curved mirror to some degree. The refection is a very small fraction of the light hitting it, but when that light is intense , e.g. an image of the sun, the reflections are bright enough become visible , e.g. flare spots. In this unusual case the flare-spots have dark crosses, which show via the tell-tale radial-distortion that a lens-like curved surface is involved in their creation.

No magic, just optics are required.

It perfectly matches observations and appears precisely the same as what's seen in the photograph....

If you could deform the film into a lens-shaped bulge yes it could cause the crosses to appear with radial-distortion as on the NASA image. However film cannot be deformed to that degree, and even if it could any other images on the bulging film would be distorted too, e.g. the spacecraft's  straight lines would be curved to same degree as the extra crosses.
    So your "transparency overlay" hypothesis does not "perfectly" match the evidence : it cannot explain radial-distortion ( that the extra crosses are all displaced radially outward from the image of the sun).  Whereas a curved mirror can do radial-distortion , and there is a curved mirror present : the rear surface of the lens.


The extra crosses are all displaced radially outward , a lens-shaped curved surface is required to do that.

[ the superimposed images via reflection is somewhat similar to "Pepper's ghost" but with a curved reflecting surface rather than a flat one ].
« Last Edit: 06/07/2014 08:20:08 by RD »
 

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 311
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
I think we've pretty thoroughly discussed our respective views of this aspect of the analysis. I'll post again later with a replication of the full formation. It's the logical next action. Maybe that will give you a little time to catch up, it looks like you missed something on "The Scientific Method" list.... 

« Last Edit: 08/07/2014 05:03:51 by Aemilius »
 

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 311
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
I think I'll just post a little summary with each new replication.

On completion the first replication of a single set of elevated doubled crosshairs, even though seen from a different angle, a strong behavioural correspondence between the target system (the NASA photograph) and the source system (the replication) was instantly recogizable....


The second replication of the same single set of elevated doubled crosshairs, really just a refinement of the first, tightened up the behavioural correspondence between the target system (the NASA photograph) and the source system (the replication) to the point where they actually became characteristically indistinguishable from one another....


This is the third replication in the series, and the first to show an entire formation of four sets of elevated doubled crosshairs. Like the first replication, a strong behavioural corespondence is immediately apparent, and the entire formation of four sets of doubled crosshairs have been elevated to approximate the relative elevations of the doubled crosshairs seen in the NASA photograph by simply lifting the transparency overlay slightly from the upper left corner of the transparency overlay....


In the next replication, I'll address the lighting and the slight curvature of the upper distorted crosshairs, as well as line thickness, to tighten up the behavioural correspondence between the target system (the NASA photograph) and the source system (the replication).

Just a note to add.... I know there's nothing certain about this. Multiple repetitions of the steps making up the scientific method are often required to arrive at a final outcome, each cycle suggesting the next experiment. Without being overconfident, I'll just say I'm increasingly certain of the final outcome at this point.
« Last Edit: 20/07/2014 19:56:03 by Aemilius »
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8130
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
... a strong behavioural correspondence between the target system (the NASA photograph) and the source system (the replication) was instantly recogizable ....



Not a strong enough correspondence : on your re-creation the duplicate (shadow) crosses are all displaced in the same direction, whereas on the photo the extra crosses are displaced radially, ( the curved crosses are all outside the green square I have drawn by joining up the orthogonal crosses ).

A lens-like curved surface is required to produce a radial displacement, (and to produce crosses made of arcs).  If you could bend the transparency into lens-like bulge that would produce a pattern which corresponded with the photo, but film is too rigid to do that, ( and there is already a lens-like surface in the camera : the lens ).
« Last Edit: 20/07/2014 23:12:08 by RD »
 

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 311
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: RD
Not a strong enough correspondence....

It's strong, certainly stronger than anything you've got, that's for sure.... and it gets stronger with each replication.     

Quote from: RD
....on your re-creation the duplicate (shadow) crosses are all displaced in the same direction, whereas on the photo the extra crosses are displaced radially, (the curved crosses are all outside the green square I have drawn by joining up the orthogonal crosses).

Yeah, I noticed that too, that's why I said I'd address the lighting and a couple of other things in the next replication. This (third) replication was carried out primarily to demonstrate how all the relative elevations of the full formation of four sets of doubled crosshairs could be accomplished by simply lifting up one corner of the transparency overlay, and it clearly did that. As we both know, the shadows being cast by the crosshairs are highly variable depending on where above the whole arrangement the light source is situated, and in this last replication they all came out similarly alligned....


But as I said, it's highly variable and I don't foresee any problem (yet) tightening up the resemblance in the next replication....


Quote from: RD
A lens-like curved surface is required to produce a radial displacement, (and to produce crosses made of arcs). If you could bend the transparency into lens-like bulge that would produce a pattern which corresponded with the photo, but film is too rigid to do that, ( and there is already a lens-like surface in the camera : the lens ).

Here we go again with the "film is too rigid" and "a lense-like curved surface is required" bit. You just make these remarks as if it's all taken for granted that what you're saying is true. It's not true and you've done absolutely nothing to support anything of what you've said, even as you've continued hairsplitting over details of my scientific method driven replications. I've already determined experimentally what the required conformation of the transparency overlay deformity is that will convincingly replicate the effect. A warped, almost teardrop shaped deformation of the surface is actually required, the point of the teardrop being situated in the region of the lower right set of doubled crosshairs closest to the image surface in the complete formation seen in the NASA photograph. It's not lense-like or lense shaped....


Have a nice day.
« Last Edit: 26/08/2014 19:01:32 by Aemilius »
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8130
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
... I don't foresee any problem (yet) tightening up the resemblance in the next replication....


Bear in mind on the photo the extra crosses are curved : they are made of two arcs.
A surface curving in two planes is required perform that distortion.
If the transparency and the surface it is projected onto remain flat,  the shadow crosses will not be curved arcs as in the photo.



Also bear in mind the extra crosses are only visible in one quadrant of the photo: the crosses are not at the corners of the frame like your reconstruction.
Lifting all four corners of your transparency would not be an accurate reconstruction of the photo.
« Last Edit: 21/07/2014 19:41:08 by RD »
 

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 311
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
I'll tell you what I'll bear in mind, I'll bear in mind that you haven't successfully completed this process even once and your'e still going on about the so called  "lense flare effect" as if it's fact when it's really just unsupported untested unverifiable fantasy....

« Last Edit: 22/07/2014 18:58:20 by Aemilius »
 

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 311
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
If you do ever get around to using the scientific method, it should look something like this....

« Last Edit: 22/07/2014 05:27:47 by Aemilius »
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8130
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
I'll tell you what I'll bear in mind ...
if your reconstruction does not include the properties of the NASA photo I have asked you to "bear in mind", (in reply #36), then you have failed to replicate it accurately and your hypothesis is unproven.

... your still going on about the so called  "lense flare effect" as if it's fact when it's really just unsupported untested unverifiable fantasy...

Refection in lens-shaped curved mirror is what I've been "going on about", which I allege could have pincushion distortion.

Here's an illustration where the curved mirror is only curving in one plane , (cylindrical) ... 


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphosis#Practical_uses

With a lens-shaped mirror, (curving in two planes), the reflected image would have pincushion distortion.
All lenses both reflect and refract light : the rear element of a camera lens will act as a curved mirror. If the light it reflects is very bright , like an image of the sun,  the refection will be recorded on the film as a flare spot. In this peculiar case , (because of the Reseau plate), the flare spot has black crosses in it which show the tell-tale pincushion distortion : giving away that they have been created by refection from a curved surface.
« Last Edit: 21/07/2014 22:37:33 by RD »
 

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 311
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
RD, you're trying to assert that, because mirrored and unmirrored smooth glass surfaces both reflect light to one degree or another, that they are the same and can do the same things....


But that's a faulty line of reasoning, and here's why. A smooth mirrored glass surface reflects almost all of the light falling upon it, whereas a clear pane of glass (similar to that employed in the Hasselblad camera) reflects very little of the light falling on it. They're polar opposites of the same phenomenon.... reflectivity. A smooth unmirrored glass surface can no more act as a mirror than a blow torch can freeze a glass of water, because hot and cold are also polar opposites of the same phenomenon.... temperature.

Just because two polar opposites of a particular phenomenon partake of the same mechanism, it doesn't automatically mean they can do all the same things or are interchangable. In light of that, when we replace the highly reflective mirrored surface of the cylinder in the example you're holding up to demonstrate the viability of your theory with a cylinder of much less reflective unmirrored glass like that used for camera lenses, your analogy instantly falls apart....


So your theory remains, as it has right from the start.... wholly unsupported.

By the way, mangling the data by reversing the light and dark values of the upper and lower crosshairs and misrepresenting the crosshair's configuration in the lower right corner doesn't accomplish anything. Your theory remains unsupported, therefore I'm under no obligation to create any replication that conforms to it. If you want to change that, all you have to do is complete the form....

« Last Edit: 24/07/2014 01:02:45 by Aemilius »
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8130
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
... a clear pane of glass (similar to that employed in the Hasselblad camera) reflects very little of the light falling on it. ...

Yes "very little" is reflected : window glass ~4% , anti-refection coated camera optics > 1%.
As I mentioned previously (reply #29) a double-refection which reaches the film in the Apollo Hasselblad camera will be approximately 13 stops dimmer than the main image, so generally will not register on film, unless it is very bright , like an image of the sun , ( the black skies also help make such flare more visible).

... A smooth unmirrored glass surface can no more act as a mirror ...
Absolute nonsense : I posted a picture of glass acting as a mirror in reply #3 in this thread, ( although that illustration was unnecessary : everyone who has seen a glass window knows they reflect light ). 

... So your theory remains, as it has right from the start.... wholly unsupported ...

Monsieur Fresnel supports my statement that all glass lenses both reflect and refract, simultaneously, see ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_equations#Overview

Refection within the elements of the lens and from within the camera (e.g. from the Reseau plate) is what causes flare. If there is flare in the image there must have been unwanted reflection by the glass in the camera. The existence of flare in the image supports my theory that reflection has occurred within the camera's optics.

When light hits glass, some is transmitted, some is reflected, and some is absorbed. All three occur simultaneously in some ratio.
« Last Edit: 23/07/2014 14:32:02 by RD »
 

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 311
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
The fact is RD that no amount of "alleging" on your part using "empirical observation" can compensate for not completing each step of the scientific method.

You continue to analgously cite various data in the form of generic informational links to support your conjecture, but for some mysterious reason you're completely unable to use any of that to physically assemble a coherent real world analog model of any kind that satisifies the requirement in the scientific method that a theory actually be tested (or at least be confirmed by the verifiable test results of others) under real world conditions before moving on to analysis of results, let alone any conclusion.   

I think it's obvious by now even to someone with a botched hemispherectomy that you simply can't provide any useful empirically verifiable repeatable data supporting your theory, even as you continue to tout a bizarre unverifiable conclusion arrived at via subjective analysis that predicts a never before seen phenomenon as being a perfectly sound and logical construct.

Each of the three replications that I've carried out so far have fully satisfied every step of the scientific method and collectively they increasingly support my initially intuitive observation, drawn from many years as an artist whose business has been the properties of light, shade and perspective, that what's observed in the NASA photograph is entirely consistent with the casting of a perfectly ordinary shadow, a simple and well known optical mechanism.

No one can analyze their way around that step of the scientific method requiring testing, and by that standard, to date, you've utterly failed to provide any verifiable support for the existence of any other optical mechanism (other than that of an ordinary shadow being cast) that's both consistent with physical principles and is capable of producing the effect seen in the NASA photograph.
« Last Edit: 24/07/2014 01:32:36 by Aemilius »
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8130
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
...  you're completely unable to use any of that to physically assemble a coherent real world analog model ...

Forget analogs, here's a photo of the real thing : a "Hasselblad EDC" where you can see a reflection in the rear-element of the lens of the square aperture at the film-plane , (covered by the Reseau plate) ...


http://www.collectspace.com/images/news-032314b.jpg
« Last Edit: 23/07/2014 23:00:42 by RD »
 

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 311
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
That's not the real thing, it's just a disassembled camera seen under studio lighting conditions....


The scientific method is the real thing....


« Last Edit: 22/12/2015 00:14:39 by Aemilius »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums