Was This Apollo Photograph (AS14-66-9306) Really Taken On The Moon?

  • 44 Replies
  • 16346 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 311
    • View Profile

This photograph of the Apollo 14 LEM on the Moon (AS14-66-9306) is distinctive from the rest in the series. It shows a set of four reticles (or crosshairs) that appear to be hovering to one degree or another above the image surface of the photograph in the region of lense flare around the Sun, and another set that appear flat and generally symmetrical beneath them on the image surface....



In this forum (in another thread) RD explained his theory that a lense flare induced ghost reticle pin cushion-like effect was at play. Essentially, the theory goes that the opaque black reticles were so brilliantly illuminated by the Sun that they reflected off one or another of the curved lenses within the camera, showing up as detailed pincushion-like ghost images in the same region where the Sun is causing normal lense flare at the same time. Unfortunately, his theory wasn't accompanied by any links, articles, replications or precedent setting examples that could actually back it up or demonstrate it.

In another forum, the theory is essentially the same, that the configuration of the lenses created a hall of mirrors like lense flare induced ghost reticle hall-like effect. Essentially, the theory goes that the opaque black reticles were so brilliantly illuminated by the Sun that they reflected off one or another of the curved lenses within the camera, showing up as hall effect-like detailed ghost images in the same region where the Sun is causing normal lense flare at the same time. Unfortunately, his theory wasn't accompanied by any links, articles, replications or precedent setting examples that could actually back it up or demonstrate it in action either, and even the preceeding photograph in the series, taken under the same conditions, shows no sign of any kind of mechanism like that playing out....


With minor variations they're the same theory I've seen repeated several times now.... none are ever accompanied by any links, articles, replications or precedent setting examples that could actually back them up or demonstrate this mechanism in action.

My proposed mechanism is based on the fact that a transparency overlay lifted up and away from the image surface in the photograph is consistent with the appearance of both the upper distorted reticles and the lower flat symmetrical reticles on the image surface....


To prove it, I replicated the conditions needed for this type of defect to appear in a photograph/transparency overlay image and then demonstrated the mechanism playing out in precisely the same way as what's seen in the detail of the photograph from NASA....


1.   The slight curvature of the upper distorted reticle up and away from the board surface in my transparency example precisely matches in appearance the slight curvature of the upper distorted reticle in the detail of the photograph from NASA.

2.   The upper distorted reticle in my transparency example shows itself to be noticably darker than the shadow it's casting on the board, precisely matching in appearance the noticably darker upper distorted reticle in the detail of the photograph from NASA.

3.   The shadow on the board from the transparency of the reticle in my example shows itself to be flat and generally symmetrical in appearance on the board, precisely matching in appearance the flat and generally symmetrical lower reticle on the image surface in the detail of the photograph from NASA.

4.   The crosshairs of the distorted upper reticle begin to diverge from the shadow they're casting while still close to the board surface (furthest from my hand) in my transparency example, and that divergence steadily increases as the distance between the transparency and the board increases to its highest point (where I'm holding it), precisely matching in appearance the divergence of the crosshairs seen in the detail of the photograph from NASA.

That's four unique features of my proposed mechanism that precisely match in appearance the detail of the photograph from NASA.... a solid one-to-one behavioural correspondence exists between my transparency overlay example and the detail in the photograph from NASA.

For now, I have to go with that over any of the (as yet) unproven theories like lense flare induced ghost reticle hall-like effect or lense flare induced ghost reticle pin cushion-like effect that confer upon a black opaque object the ability to cause a distinct and detailed ghost image of itself to appear in the same region as lense flare is occurring in any photograph.... Can anyone provide a more plausible, and provable, alternative interpretation of it than an unsupported theory or point to some supporting evidence for the other lense flare induced ghost reticle theories in the form of links, articles, replications or precedent setting examples (in a format similar to what I provided) that explain in more detail and/or provably demonstrate the theory in action?
« Last Edit: 26/08/2014 11:20:46 by Aemilius »

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8185
    • View Profile
The duplicate curved crosses radiate outward from the light source ...

[attachment=18828]

A surface curving in two planes is required to create such radial distortion, e.g. a curved mirror , ( a lens could simultaneously act as a curved mirror ).  If the otherwise flat film had bubble-like curve that could produce radial distortion, however that the hypothetical bubble would be centred on the light-source seems too much of a coincidence.

If the duplicate crosses cannot be explained to your satisfaction they would not necessary be evidence that the image was not taken on the moon. i.e. not necessary evidence of fraud.
« Last Edit: 22/06/2014 03:33:13 by RD »

*

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 311
    • View Profile
Quote from: RD
The duplicate curved crosses radiate outward from the light source …

You're right.... they do seem to radiate out from the light source.

Quote from: RD
A surface curving in two planes is required to create such
radial distortion, e.g. a curved mirror , ( a lens could simultaneously act as a curved mirror ). If the otherwise flat film had bubble-like curve that could produce radial distortion, however that the hypothetical bubble would be centred on the light-source seems too much of a coincidence.

Right again, it does seem too much of a coincidence.... that's because it is. All forms of optical distortion (barrel, pincushion, etc.) caused by lenses (aside from irregularly shaped ones) have to do with the optical axis of a lense, not the optical axis of a light source in an image, so the notion that the light source in the photograph could be causing any localized radial distortion anywhere in the image is an obvious misinterpretation of distortion in optics applied to a light source in a photograph.

And the curved mirror effect? Well, the lenses weren't mirrored so they really couldn't have acted simultaneously like a curved mirror, especially for a black opaque object (or reticle). Only a very bright light can exploit the minimal reflectivity of a transparent lense, so the notion that a black opaque object could cause a distinct and detailed ghost image of itself to appear in an image in the same region that lense flare is occurring.... well, it would have to be an extraordinarily glary black opaque object to be able to exploit the minimal reflectivity of a transparent lense in the same way a bright light source can. It doesn't work.

So if your intent RD was to use those links to support your theory, it didn't work... at all. Neither of the misapplied principles of radial distortion or curved mirrors add any credibilty to your explanation.... Why can't you just post an example of an image that supports what you're saying they way I did man? Until you do can do that you're unproven theories are all just that.... unproven theories.

Even if by some miracle this lense flare induced ghost reticle pincushion-like effect theory of yours could somehow be shown to work, I can't help but think that the liklihood of it reproducing the actual appearance of the reticles in the photograph with anything near the same degree of precision that my example and demonstration does is extremely low....

   

Quote from: RD
If the duplicate crosses cannot be explained to your satisfaction they would not necessary be evidence that the image was not taken on the moon. i.e. not necessary evidence of fraud.

Thanks RD, but I think I've had about enough of your brand of "interpretation" for now.... talk to you later.
« Last Edit: 22/06/2014 08:35:40 by Aemilius »

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8185
    • View Profile
And the curved mirror effect? Well, the lenses weren't mirrored so they really couldn't have acted simultaneously like a curved mirror

Glass does not need to be mirrored to reflect light ...



All lenses both refract and reflect the light passing through them.
Anti-reflection coatings are applied to lens-elements to reduce reflection, but this is not 100% successful , when it fails the result is lens-flare , ( i.e. by definition reflection has occurred in the lens to produce the large disc around the light source on AS14-66-9306 ).
« Last Edit: 22/06/2014 10:32:53 by RD »

*

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 311
    • View Profile
Your example proves that, compared to the distorted reticles seen in the photograph of the LEM, a trolley can be seen on a sunny day in a darkened store window....



My example proves that, compared to the distorted reticles seen in the photograph of the LEM, a transparency overlay is entirely consistent with the appearance of the distorted reticles in the photograph of the LEM....



If I have to choose between the two, I think I'll stick with my factually based coherent explanation and convincing demonstration that precisely conforms to observations in a variety of ways and displays a solid one-to-one behavioural correspondence with what's seen in the photograph, not some incredible unproven theory about a lense flare induced ghost reticle pincushion-like effect bouncing shadows around between lenses in broad daylight that somehow end up replicating the distorted reticles seen in the photograph from NASA.

« Last Edit: 22/06/2014 14:07:42 by Aemilius »

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8185
    • View Profile
Your example proves that, compared to the distorted reticles seen in the photograph of the LEM, a trolley can be seen on a sunny day in a darkened store window....

The trolley reflection disproves your assertion that glass lenses could not act like a mirror unless they were silvered.

I'll stick with my factually based coherent explanation and convincing demonstration that precisely conforms to observations in a variety of ways and displays a solid one-to-one behavioural correspondence with what's seen in the photograph

Not precisely : lifting up one corner won't produce radial distortion:  you'd have to raise all four corners without lifting the centre to match what's in the photo,  [ i.e. something similar to the unlikely hypothetical film-bubble I mentioned previously (Reply#1)].

[attachment=18846]
« Last Edit: 22/06/2014 14:41:24 by RD »

*

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 311
    • View Profile
Quote from: RD
The trolley reflection disproves your assertion that glass lenses could not act like a mirror unless they were silvered.

What I said was.... "Only a very bright light can exploit the minimal reflectivity of a transparent lense, so the notion that a black opaque object could cause a distinct and detailed ghost image of itself to appear in an image in the same region that lense flare is occurring.... well, it would have to be an extraordinarily glary black opaque object to be able to exploit the minimal reflectivity of a transparent lense in the same way a bright light source can." The reflectivity of transparent glass can be circumstantial....

When looking through a transparent pane of glass from a brightly lit area into a darkened area, objects can clearly be seen in reflection from the brightly lit side....   


….and when looking through a transparent pane of glass from a darkened area into a brightly lit area, objects can't be seen clearly in reflection from the darkened side....


….and when the light values are approximately the same on both sides of the window, objects cannot be seen clearly in reflection from either side of the glass (which is why people sometimes walk into glass doors and windows).... 


….none of which does anything to support, demonstrate or prove your theory about lense flare induced ghost reticle pincushion-like effect to be genuinely possible in the same way that I supported, demonstrated and proved my transparency overlay example to be genuinely possible.

Quote from: RD
Not precisely : lifting up one corner won't produce radial distortion:  you'd have to raise all four corners to match what's in the photo,  [ i.e. something similar to the unlikely hypothetical film-bubble I mentioned previously ].

Yes, precisely. I convincingly replicated one complete set of reticles (an upper distorted curved reticle and a lower flat symmetrical reticle). The conformation of the transparency overlay deformity and the lighting needed to cause the appearance of the entire formation of four reticles is academic.

You can't refute anything I've proven, and you can't prove anything I've refuted.... seems to be a pattern so it's not worth continuing. If you do manage to come up with an alternative interpretation that makes sense and you can prove, like I did, I'll talk to you about it then.
« Last Edit: 23/06/2014 08:36:45 by Aemilius »

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8185
    • View Profile
"Only a very bright light can exploit the minimal reflectivity of a transparent lense"

The sun is a "very bright light".

"….and when the light values are approximately the same on both sides of the window, objects cannot be seen clearly in reflection from either side of the glass (which is why people sometimes walk into glass doors and windows)...." 

Without anti-reflective coating, glass reflects about 5% of the light hitting it, regardless of whether it is lit from one or both sides.
   
The conformation of the transparency overlay deformity and the lighting needed to cause the appearance of the entire formation of four reticles is academic.

No it isn't academic : to match all four reticles would require a bulge-type deformation in the film, similar to the surface of a lens, ( hint hint ).
« Last Edit: 22/06/2014 15:48:34 by RD »

*

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 311
    • View Profile
Anyone else.... Dr. Calverd?

*

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 311
    • View Profile
Quote from: Aemilius
The conformation of the transparency overlay deformity and the lighting needed to cause the appearance of the entire formation of four reticles is academic.

Quote from: RD
No it isn't academic : to match all four reticles would require a bulge-type deformation in the film, similar to the surface of a lens, ( hint hint ).

On second thought.... Challenge accepted (I probably would have gone ahead with it anyway). I'll replicate the entire formation of four sets of distorted upper reticles and symmetrical lower ones.

Quote from: RD
….lifting up one corner won't produce radial distortion: you'd have to raise all four corners to match what's in the photo....

Not so, only three corners need be slightly elevated, the reticle in the lower right hand corner of the formation is fairly close to the image surface, evidenced by the reduced degree of distortion it exhibits compared to the others....


I've already pretty well mapped out how the replication of the whole formation should appear on the board when I shoot it....


I'll post it when it's completed (I'm guessing a week or so).
« Last Edit: 23/06/2014 09:24:32 by Aemilius »

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8185
    • View Profile
... I'll replicate the entire formation of four sets of distorted upper reticles and symmetrical lower ones.

Bear in mind the full-frame image looks like this ...



that's what you're trying to replicate with your sheet of film , not just the region around the flare-spot.

BTW your rendition of the second crosses is not curved like the original :
 the second crosses are made up of two arcs , not two straight lines ...

[attachment=18852]
« Last Edit: 23/06/2014 10:28:11 by RD »

*

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 311
    • View Profile
More faux pas and analytical fumbling in a science forum affiliated with Cambridge University.... fascinating.     

Quote from: RD
Bear in mind the full-frame image looks like this ...



that's what you're trying to replicate with your sheet of film , not just the region around the flare-spot.

What? I'm not trying replicate the subject matter in the photograph at all.... Why would anyone want to do that? The objective of the replication is to precisely replicate the appearance of the four sets of reticles as they appear in the affected region in the photograph on a board and then post the results as before....


It has nothing whatsoever to do with reproducing the subject matter in the photograph. For example, there's no reason to include the expanse of blackness to the right of the LEM as part the replication process, because whether it's included or not, it won't make any difference in the final appearance of the completed replication, so I need not include it....


The same goes for any of the rest of the subject matter in the photograph. It's the conditions causing the anomolous doubled appearance of the reticles seen in the affected region of the photograph that are of interest, not the expanse of blackness to the right, or a foot of the LEM, or the slope of the hill to the left. In fact, it wouldn't make any difference if the subject matter in the photograph was the LEM, a diamond, an elephant, or even Dr. Alan Calverd Ph.D.... all things being equal (with respect to the defects seen in the image), the outcome of the replication would be the same.

By that line of reasoning, any suggested significance of the subject matter contributing to the appearance of the defective reticles in the photograph, even in the affected region, is rendered an irrelevant non-issue.... Shocking, isn't it? The next replication of the complete formation will therefore appear much the same as the last, precisely replicating (even more completely) the appearance of the defective reticles seen in the affected region of the photograph.   

RD.... it's really astonishing to me (an old eighth-grade dropout) that anyone would actually have to explain any of that to you!

Quote from: RD
BTW your rendition of the second crosses is not curved like the original :



the second crosses are made up of two arcs , not two straight lines ...

In reality, the lines making up the crosshairs in my schematic are curved, they're just not to scale. They were taken directly from the diagram of “pincushion effect” you've been abusing recently. That's why I said earlier that I'd “pretty well mapped out how the replication of the whole formation should appear”.... not that I'd “precisely mapped out how the replication of the whole formation should appear”

Anyway, in the mean time RD, while I work on my predictably even more precise and complete replication than the one already carried out, why don't you make some attempt to salvage and keep afloat your lense flare-like induced ghost reticle-like/pincusion-like/radial distortion-like/curved mirror-like/Titanic slipping beneath the waves-like effect theory and see if you can't at least manage to dredge up some empirical support for it comparable to the empirical support I've both provided and demonstrated at this point, such as an example of a photograph/replication showing your proposed (and as yet unproven) mechanism actually playing out, then we can compare notes.

If I was a bookie.... I'd bet it all on me.
« Last Edit: 24/06/2014 00:55:30 by Aemilius »

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8185
    • View Profile
What? I'm not trying replicate the subject matter in the photograph at all.... Why would anyone want to do that? The objective of the replication is to precisely replicate the appearance of the four sets of reticles as they appear in the affected region in the photograph on a board and then post the results as before....

The point I was making was that to replicate the effect seen on the original image you'd have to just warp the top left corner of your sheet of film, (corresponding with where the flare spot is), keeping the other three-quarters of the frame flat.
 Isolating (cropping) the flare spot and lifting the corners is cheating : in the actual image the extra-crosses are not at the corners of the frame.

If I was a bookie.... I'd bet it all on me.

Self-praise is no recommendation.
« Last Edit: 24/06/2014 01:00:02 by RD »

*

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 311
    • View Profile
Quote from: RD
The point I was making was that to replicate the effect seen on the original image you'd have to just warp the top left corner of your sheet of film, (corresponding with where the flare spot is), keeping the other three-quarters of the frame flat.

I would agree with you if we were talking about the previous image in the series where all of the reticles are visble....


But we're not. In fact, of the twenty five reticles in the image, there are just ten reticles (red) that are discernable outside of the effected region (yellow), and many of those are only partially visible at that. None of the rest of the reticles in the image are even visible....


Based on that fact, it doesn't make any sense for you to speculate on what the conformation of the transparency overlay was elsewhere outside the affected region and then claim based on that that it must have been flat or that it must have been bulging or that it must have been anything over the whole of the image surface outside the affected region, since there's no way to confirm or deny that assertion one way or the other. That all effectively renders your assertion that....

Quote from: RD
Isolating (cropping) the flare spot and lifting the corners is cheating : in the actual image the extra-crosses are not at the corners of the frame.

….just another analytical blunder, a red herring. The next replication of the complete formation will therefore appear much the same as the last, precisely replicating (even more completely) the appearance of the defective reticles seen in the affected region of the photograph without speculation as to whether any particular conformation or particular sort of deformity does or doesn't exist outside of the affected region of the photograph....


Anyway, like I said before, in the mean time, while I work on my predictably even more precise and complete replication than the one already carried out, why don't you make some attempt to salvage and keep afloat your theory about the lense flare-like induced ghost reticle-like/pincusion-like/radial distortion-like/curved mirror-like/Titanic slipping beneath the waves-like effect and see if you can't at least manage to dredge up some empirical support for it comparable to the empirical support I've both provided and demonstrated at this point, such as an example of a photograph/replication showing your proposed (and as yet unproven) mechanism actually playing out, then we can compare notes.
« Last Edit: 26/08/2014 11:22:33 by Aemilius »

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8185
    • View Profile
... it doesn't make any sense for you to speculate on what the conformation of the transparency overlay was elsewhere outside the affected region and then claim based on that that it must have been flat or that it must have been bulging or that it must have been anything over the whole of the image surface outside the affected region, since there's no way to confirm or deny that assertion one way or the other...

The extra crosses only exist in the top left quadrant of the frame, if they were due to the film being warped then the rest of the frame must be flat otherwise the crosses elsewhere in the frame would be also be duplicated. The extra crosses are a local effect on the flare-spot area of the frame.

BTW if the film was warped, (either in-camera or whilst creating a film duplicate), the image of the spacecraft would also be warped, which would be detectable : straight lines on the craft would no-longer be straight.


... you can't at least manage to dredge up some empirical support for it ...

[attachment=18854]
These flare spots diagonally opposite the light source are evidence refection has occurred within the lens. Refection from a curved surface, (like that of a lens), will have radial distortion, e.g. pincushion distortion, (think shaving mirror) ...


http://www.glogster.com/owehrle/curved-mirrors/g-6meb4ji9h2i56u0qhm9cia0
« Last Edit: 25/06/2014 01:20:30 by RD »

*

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 311
    • View Profile
Quote from: RD
The extra crosses only exist in the top left quadrant of the frame, if they were due to the film being warped then the rest of the frame must be flat otherwise the crosses elsewhere in the frame would be also be duplicated.  The extra crosses are a local effect on the flare-spot area of the frame.

More unsupported speculation. There are broad  areas (aside from the affected region) where the reticles can't be seen at all.... no one can say with any certainty whether reticles in those regions are defective or not. If the ten reticles that can be seen (many of them blurry or only partially visible) were crystal clear, they would still simply not be sufficient to reliably predict the conformation of the rest of the transparency overlay.   

Quote from: RD
BTW if the film was warped, (either in-camera or whilst creating a film duplicate), the image of the spacecraft would also be warped, which would be detectable : straight lines on the craft would no-longer be straight.

Do you even understand what a “transparency overlay” is? The image surface (which is flat and in pristine focus in the photograph) and the transparency overlay (a thin flexible plastic sheet placed over the photograph) are two distinct objects. Slightly warping the transparency overlay above (along with anything printed on it) won't cause any appreciable distortion of the image below any more than slightly warping the image below would cause any appreciable distortion of the transparency overlay (along with anything printed on it) above.

Quote from: RD


These flare spots diagonally opposite the light source are evidence refection has occurred within the lens. Refection from a curved surface, (like that of a lens), will have radial distortion, e.g. pincushion distortion, (think shaving mirror) …



The top image shows normal lense flare caused by a bright light, and that's all it shows. The bottom image shows an old guy looking in a mirror.... neither do anything to prove or demonsatre how your theory of lense flare-like induced ghost reticle-like/pincusion-like/radial distortion-like/curved mirror-like/Titanic slipping beneath the waves-like effect could possibly confer upon a black opaque object (or reticle) the ability to partake of the same mechanism that a bright light does by bouncing shadows around between lenses in broad daylight that somehow end up not only replicating the distorted reticles, but even imposing distinct and detailed ghost images of them to appear in the same region as normal lense flare is occurring in the photograph.... preposterous. Whatever causes lense flare has to be glary....so you can settle the whole thing right now by simply posting an image of a black opaque object being so brilliantly illuminated by the Sun that it becomes glary!   

I'm done talking with you about it RD. Your credibility is just shredded man....  I feel like I'm in a boxing match with a guy that has no arms and a titanium jaw. You never do take a swing.... you just keep dancing around and sticking your jaw out!

*

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 311
    • View Profile
Nothing RD has posted so far has proven anything, refuted anything, backed up anything, provided evidence of anything or demonstrated anything that either disproves or refutes my assertion or supports his impossibly fantastic theory, and it never once occurred to me during our exchange to alter or change a single key stroke of the original post because of anything he said or did, it remains unassailed....

Quote from: Aemilus

This photograph of the Apollo 14 LEM on the Moon (AS14-66-9306) is distinctive from the rest in the series. It shows a set of four reticles (or crosshairs) that appear to be hovering to one degree or another above the image surface of the photograph in the region of lense flare around the Sun, and another set that appear flat and generally symmetrical beneath them on the image surface....



In this forum (in another thread) RD explained his theory that a lense flare induced ghost reticle pin cushion-like effect was at play. Essentially, the theory goes that the opaque black reticles were so brilliantly illuminated by the Sun that they reflected off one or another of the curved lenses within the camera, showing up as detailed pincushion-like ghost images in the same region where the Sun is causing normal lense flare at the same time. Unfortunately, his theory wasn't accompanied by any links, articles, replications or precedent setting examples that could actually back it up or demonstrate it.

In another forum, the theory is essentially the same, that the configuration of the lenses created a hall of mirrors like lense flare induced ghost reticle hall-like effect. Essentially, the theory goes that the opaque black reticles were so brilliantly illuminated by the Sun that they reflected off one or another of the curved lenses within the camera, showing up as hall effect-like detailed ghost images in the same region where the Sun is causing normal lense flare at the same time. Unfortunately, his theory wasn't accompanied by any links, articles, replications or precedent setting examples that could actually back it up or demonstrate it in action either, and even the preceeding photograph in the series, taken under the same conditions, shows no sign of any kind of mechanism like that playing out....


With minor variations they're the same theory I've seen repeated several times now.... none are ever accompanied by any links, articles, replications or precedent setting examples that could actually back them up or demonstrate this mechanism in action.

My proposed mechanism is based on the fact that a transparency overlay lifted up and away from the image surface in the photograph is consistent with the appearance of both the upper distorted reticles and the lower flat symmetrical reticles on the image surface....


To prove it, I replicated the conditions needed for this type of defect to appear in a photograph/transparency overlay image and then demonstrated the mechanism playing out in precisely the same way as what's seen in the detail of the photograph from NASA....


1.   The slight curvature of the upper distorted reticle up and away from the board surface in my transparency example precisely matches in appearance the slight curvature of the upper distorted reticle in the detail of the photograph from NASA.

2.   The upper distorted reticle in my transparency example shows itself to be noticably darker than the shadow it's casting on the board, precisely matching in appearance the noticably darker upper distorted reticle in the detail of the photograph from NASA.

3.   The shadow on the board from the transparency of the reticle in my example shows itself to be flat and generally symmetrical in appearance on the board, precisely matching in appearance the flat and generally symmetrical lower reticle on the image surface in the detail of the photograph from NASA.

4.   The crosshairs of the distorted upper reticle begin to diverge from the shadow they're casting while still close to the board surface (furthest from my hand) in my transparency example, and that divergence steadily increases as the distance between the transparency and the board increases to its highest point (where I'm holding it), precisely matching in appearance the divergence of the crosshairs seen in the detail of the photograph from NASA.

That's four unique features of my proposed mechanism that precisely match in appearance the detail of the photograph from NASA.... a solid one-to-one behavioural correspondence exists between my transparency overlay example and the detail in the photograph from NASA.

For now, I have to go with that over any of the (as yet) unproven theories like lense flare induced ghost reticle hall-like effect or lense flare induced ghost reticle pin cushion-like effect that confer upon a black opaque object the ability to cause a distinct and detailed ghost image of itself to appear in the same region as lense flare is occurring in any photograph.

Can't anyone (besides you RD) attempt to provide a more plausible, and provable, alternative interpretation of the photograhic evidence than an unsupported theory or point to some supporting evidence for the existence of any lense flare induced ghost reticle theories in the form of links, articles, replications or precedent setting examples (in a format similar to what I provided) that explain in more detail and/or provably demonstrate the theory in action?
« Last Edit: 25/06/2014 11:36:44 by Aemilius »

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8185
    • View Profile
The top image shows normal lense flare caused by a bright light, and that's all it shows

That those flare spots are diagonally opposite the light-source shows reflection has occurred in the lens.
A refection from a curved surface, like that of a lens, can have pincushion distortion, like the "old guy looking in a mirror". So the necessary ingredients are there for my explanation for the origin of the extra crosses.

Do you even understand what a “transparency overlay” is?

I know what a contact-print is : I have made many of them and consequently can tell you that film is not “flexible” enough for your hypothesis to be possible.
« Last Edit: 25/06/2014 06:06:07 by RD »

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8185
    • View Profile

Quote from: RD
….lifting up one corner won't produce radial distortion: you'd have to raise all four corners to match what's in the photo....

Not so, only three corners need be slightly elevated, the reticle in the lower right hand corner of the formation is fairly close to the image surface, evidenced by the reduced degree of distortion it exhibits compared to the others....

The high-resolution version shows it's definitely all four ...

[attachment=18858]

*

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 311
    • View Profile
Quote from: RD
That those flare spots are diagonally opposite the light-source shows reflection has occurred in the lens.



That's right, normal lense flare caused by a bright light.... So what? It doesn't prove anything, it doesn't support you theory.

Quote from: RD
A refection from a curved surface, like that of a lens, can have pincushion distortion, like the “old guy looking in a mirror". So the necessary ingredients are there for my explanation for the origin of the extra crosses.

No, they're clearly not. If you had all the ingredients for your “explanation”, you would have combined them by now to form an empirically verifiable replication.... Why can't you simply post an actual example that's consistent with what's seen in the photograph? Without providing any empirically replicatable proof or supporting evidence in the form of an actual photograph or example showing your proposed mechanism in operation (like I did), your “explanation” is shown to be nothing more than a fantastic unproven theory, and this will probably come as shock to you but.... An unproven theory is not an explanation.

Quote from: Aemilius
….only three corners need be slightly elevated, the reticle in the lower right hand corner of the formation is fairly close to the image surface, evidenced by the reduced degree of distortion it exhibits compared to the others....

Quote from: RD
The high-resolution version shows it's definitely all four ...



Nonsense. I've already posted a schematic indicating my awarenress of the relative elevations of the  various reticles in the formation. The forthcoming example will precisely replicate the various elevations of the reticles in the formation shown in the photograph....


Quote from: RD
I know what a contact-print is : I have made many of them and consequently can tell you that film is not “flexible” enough for your hypothesis to be possible.

More analytical fumbling. Contact prints.... Who said anything about contact prints? I've already clearly demonstrated with my example how a thin flexible see-through piece of clear acetate or mylar (otherwise known as a transparency overlay) lifted up and away from the flat board surface (representative of the flat image surface in the photograph) can precisely replicate the appearance of the reticles in the affected region....


1.   The slight curvature of the upper distorted reticle up and away from the board surface in my transparency example precisely matches in appearance the slight curvature of the upper distorted reticle in the detail of the photograph from NASA.

2.   The upper distorted reticle in my transparency example shows itself to be noticably darker than the shadow it's casting on the board, precisely matching in appearance the noticably darker upper distorted reticle in the detail of the photograph from NASA.

3.   The shadow on the board from the transparency of the reticle in my example shows itself to be flat and generally symmetrical in appearance on the board, precisely matching in appearance the flat and generally symmetrical lower reticle on the image surface in the detail of the photograph from NASA.

4.   The crosshairs of the distorted upper reticle begin to diverge from the shadow they're casting while still close to the board surface (furthest from my hand) in my transparency example, and that divergence steadily increases as the distance between the transparency and the board increases to its highest point (where I'm holding it), precisely matching in appearance the divergence of the crosshairs seen in the detail of the photograph from NASA.

That's four unique features of my proposed mechanism that precisely match in appearance the detail of the photograph from NASA.... a solid one-to-one behavioural correspondence exists between my transparency overlay example and the detail in the photograph from NASA.

Even without any further elaboration, the theory is proven.
« Last Edit: 26/06/2014 03:25:00 by Aemilius »

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8185
    • View Profile
It seems the extra crosses only appear when shooting into the sun , with plenty of flare ...

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-46-6764HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a16/AS16-113-18321HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20411HR.jpg

So consistent with an in-camera phenomenon , rather than post-production fakery.

Unless you can find extra crosses in a flare-free NASA moon image the puzzle is solved.
« Last Edit: 25/06/2014 14:35:21 by RD »

*

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 311
    • View Profile
Quote from: RD
It seems the extra crosses only appear when shooting into the sun , with plenty of flare ...

Does it really seem that way to you RD? An empirically unfounded speculative assumption. To found it properly, in accordance with the empirical method, you'd have to show at least one other instance of it actually occurring that's similar in appearance to the way it appears in either the Apollo photograph, another photograph, or a convincing replication in order to say with any confidence that the observed effects "only appear when shooting into the sun"

Quote from: RD
So consistent with an in-camera phenomenon , rather than post-production fakery.

An inherently unreliable conclusive assertion based on an empirically unfounded speculative assumption.
 
Quote from: RD
Unless you can find extra crosses in a flare-free NASA moon image the puzzle is solved

An unwarranted declaration of resolution.... pending satisfaction of an eroneously extended challenge to produce supporting evidence of phenomena.
 
So.... What do we have really? An eroneously extended challenge to produce supporting evidence of phenomena.... based on an inherently unreliable conclusive assertion.... arrived at by way of an empirically unfounded speculative assumption.... leading to an unwarranted declaration of resolution.... pending satisfaction of the eroneously extended challenge to produce evidence.

If we're going by the empirical method, still, nothing you've posted so far RD (really seems an eternity) has proven anything, refuted anything, backed up anything, provided real evidence of anything or demonstrated anything that either disproves or refutes my empirically verifiable assertion...


....or that supports your impossibly fantastic unproven theory. At this point, as a staunch proponent of the official narrative (and mysteriously the only respondent so far in a Science Forum affiliated with Cambridge University), you're now actually in danger of appearing to match the very profile of the detractors as you've outlined them in the past.
« Last Edit: 26/06/2014 05:26:22 by Aemilius »

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8185
    • View Profile
Quote from: RD
It seems the extra crosses only appear when shooting into the sun , with plenty of flare ...

Does it really seem that way to you RD?

Yes it does seem to be the case as the only examples of images with duplicate crosses I've seen are images which have conspicuous flare, (see the NASA links in my reply #20  ).

If you can find a NASA moon image with duplicate crosses which does not have flare it would be evidence the duplicate crosses are not an in-camera phenomenon caused by flare, as I allege.

If the extra crosses are generated in post-production fakery there's no reason they should only occur in images with flare , (which will be a minority of the photographs taken). If you are correct and the extra crosses are an artefact of image manipulation there should be plenty more of them in images without flare. Good luck finding them.

... a Science Forum affiliated with Cambridge University

That this forum is hosted by Cambridge University should not add credibility to the opinions expressed by contributors: Have you not seen the "may contain nuts" disclaimer at the bottom of the page ? ...

Quote from: thenakedscientists.com
"Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large."
« Last Edit: 26/06/2014 05:53:42 by RD »

*

Offline Georgia

  • Global Moderator
  • Jr. Member
  • *****
  • 22
    • View Profile
Speaking of moderators... let's keep it friendly please folks!

*

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 311
    • View Profile
Quote from: RD
Yes it does seem to be the case as the only examples of images with duplicate crosses I've seen are images which have conspicuous flare, (see the NASA links in my reply #20 ).

The way things seem is not the empirical method, check these out some time man....
 
and


Quote from: RD
If you can find a NASA moon image with duplicate crosses which does not have flare it would be evidence the duplicate crosses are not an in-camera phenomenon caused by flare, as I allege.

Right, as you allege but can't prove, demonstrate or support in any substantial or compelling way using anything that even remotely resembles the empirical method.

Quote from: RD
If the extra crosses are generated in post-production fakery there's no reason they should only occur in images with flare , (which will be a minority of the photographs taken). If you are correct and the extra crosses are an artefact of image manipulation there should be plenty
more of them in images without flare. Good luck finding them.

In reality, it wouldn't be evidence, it would be a miracle. Not because of any extraordinary unproven lense flare-like optical effect either, but simply because for an opaque black object (or reticle) to cast a shadow onto a surface (or film) behind it, it must be directly illuminated and be located between the light source and the surface (or film) where its shadow falls....


When the light source is either perpendicular to the optical axis of the camera lense, or behind the camera, there's no direct illumination of the reticle that puts it in between the light source and the surface (or film) where a shadow would fall so no shadow is cast.


So that's the reason you won't find evidence of the effect being seen in images with the sun completely out of frame or behind the camera, not because of any extraordinary unproven lense flare-like optical effect.... it has to be between the light source and the surface (or film) that its shadow falls on.

The upper distorted reticle in my example also indicates that the reticles seen in the photograph couldn't have been etched onto a rigid glass plate either, since, in order to replicate even one of the upper distorted curved reticles making up the formation of four seen in the photograph, it was necessary to introduce a significant bend of the transparency overlay to achieve the same appearance as that seen in the photograph.

When both reticles are flat in appearance (the upper reticle and the shadow it casts) it indicates a flat retical casting a flat shadow....


And when the shadow falls onto a distorted surface (or film) curving away from a flat reticle above, it's the lower shadow of the reticle that would be distorted instead of the upper one....



What's seen however is a distinct curvature of the upper distorted reticle and a flat shadow of it being cast that's symmetrical in appearance....


That configuration only matches one well known provably ordinary mechanism, that of the upper distorted reticle having been printed on a thin flexible transparent material that's casting a shadow in precisely the same way as that employed in my example....


Just based on what I've shown so far, I'd say that pending some other empirically founded interpretation in the form of a precedent setting example or replication that surpasses mine by demonstrating an even stronger one-to-one behavioural correspondence with what's seen in the photograph.... It's a proven fake (and by extension the rest of the photographs in that particular series). 
« Last Edit: 27/06/2014 10:32:14 by Aemilius »

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8185
    • 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
  • ****
  • 311
    • 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
  • ******
  • 8185
    • 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 ...

[attachment=18923]
« Last Edit: 01/07/2014 10:50:47 by RD »

*

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 311
    • 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
  • ******
  • 8185
    • View Profile
[attachment=18931]

Your diagram above has the cross aligned on the optical-axis of the lens.
In that special-case the effect I’ve 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 ...

[attachment=18935]

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
  • ****
  • 311
    • 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 I’ve 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
  • ******
  • 8185
    • 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
  • ****
  • 311
    • 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
  • ****
  • 311
    • 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
  • ******
  • 8185
    • View Profile
... a strong behavioural correspondence between the target system (the NASA photograph) and the source system (the replication) was instantly recogizable ....

[attachment=19001]

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
  • ****
  • 311
    • 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
  • ******
  • 8185
    • 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.

[attachment=19005]

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
  • ****
  • 311
    • 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
  • ****
  • 311
    • 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
  • ******
  • 8185
    • 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
  • ****
  • 311
    • 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
  • ******
  • 8185
    • 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
  • ****
  • 311
    • 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
  • ******
  • 8185
    • 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) ...

[attachment=19013]
http://www.collectspace.com/images/news-032314b.jpg
« Last Edit: 23/07/2014 23:00:42 by RD »

*

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 311
    • 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 »