PDA

View Full Version : Buzz's hot spot



AstroMike
2002-Mar-19, 06:58 PM
http://www.aulis.com./article2.htm

I think Clavius has a pretty good debunking to this here (http://www.clavius.org/bootspot.html). I don't understand why would someone think a studio light would produced the hot spot? It doesn't seem right to me.

JayUtah
2002-Mar-20, 03:34 AM
Of course it doesn't seem right. In logician jargon this is called an affirmation of the consequent. Or stated formally,

"If A implies B and B is asserted, A remains unknown because there may exist a C such that C implies B."

Do not be fooled by the elaborate computations associated with this argument. They are simply a diversion, a decoy to convey the impression of rigor.

Percy's explanation is simply ad hoc. It explains the one feature he notes in the way he wants it explained, but fails to explain anything else, and raises even more questions.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-03-19 22:37 ]</font>

Peter B
2002-Mar-20, 04:59 AM
Obviously "heiligenschein" was just too long a word for them to be bothered with...

JayUtah
2002-Mar-20, 02:14 PM
Well, heiligenschein wouldn't explain the spot on the boot, but it does account for the generally acceptable lighting in this sequence of photos. In fact, if you look at photos taken from the inside of the LM you can see that the LM's porch would be exactly in line to receive the most illumination at zero phase angle.

It's unclear whether Percy claims the light that produced the hot spot is also the light which provided fill. You cannot, of course, use a point light source without that light casting visible shadows, so the only acceptable fill for this would be a very broad diffused or reflected light source. On Clavius I show evidence that the fill light was coming from underneath, i.e., the lunar surface.

Percy maintains that the shade and shadow on the moon are pitch black, with no light whatsoever. Since many of his alleged anomalies require this as a premise, he defends it tenaciously against any sense of fact or reason. He cites the geometric albedo of the moon as 0.17, "the same as fresh asphalt", when in fact 0.17 is the albedo of considerably aged asphalt, almost identical to standard concrete. He cites the color as dark gray (true) without considering the specific characteristics of lunar surface illumination which have been observed from earth for centuries.

The fact remains that all his alleged lighting anomalies in which he says fill light was used are, in fact, explained by a reasonably reflective, "heiligenschiny" surface.

jrkeller
2002-Mar-21, 03:47 AM
I took a look at the original version of this photograph and noticed that there is no hot spot on Buzz's boot. The picture on the Aulis website is overexposed. This overexposure probably caused the slightly brighter area on Buzz's boot (in the original) to bleed into the other darker areas. I've personally done this overexposure trick while making black and white prints from negatives.

This picture is reprinted in the Apollo 11 Mission reports Volume 1 in the color insert section and it also shows no hot spot.

I've looked over this hoax site and I think its one of the worst I've seen. They take photographs, like the John Young leaping salute, put them out of focus or print them in black and white when the oringinal was in color, and say there is a problem.

jrkeller
2002-Mar-21, 05:13 PM
Just so you know, the photograph in question is

AS11-40-5865

and you can view it at

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/20130708.jpg

JayUtah
2002-Mar-21, 06:46 PM
The link refers to one of the JSC scans done on the 1980s to establish a set of "thumbnails" for all the Apollo photos. It was indeed scanned from the master transparency, but there are numerous problems with the scans among which is the tendency for them to be underexposed. Kipp Teague theorizes the equipment was not optimized for scanning transparencies and would have done a better job on prints. In any case, the JSC scans were made with emphasis on getting them all scanned, not making high-quality digital versions.

Percy's print is indeed more greatly exposed, and bleed is definitely a consideration. But Percy is not likely responsible for the exposure. You can find a number of digital photos on NASA sites, and the ApolloArchive site, whose corresponding images from the JSC scans are extremely dark.

Now it is entirely possible that the prints from which the brighter images were made were themselves pushed in the printing. So it's not a matter of saying this-or-that version is authoritative.

2002-Apr-26, 10:07 AM
<a name="20020426.2"> page 20020426.2 aka Photo 20130708.jpg
On 2002-03-21 12:13, jrkeller wrote: To: April 26, 2002
Just so you know, the photograph in question is

AS11-40-5865

and you can view it at

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/20130708.jpg

HUb' 2:03 A.M. PST: well i did download this
haven't yet had a LOOK? (this was page 5) I find it more Current then the current current.

AstroMike
2002-Sep-02, 07:15 PM
Sorry to drag this up, but look what I found.

AS11-40-5867 (http://www.nasm.si.edu/apollo/AS11/images/AS11-40-5867.html)

http://www.nasm.si.edu/apollo/AS11/images/AS11-40-5867.jpg

Notice there is no hot spot on Aldrin's boot in this photo. I guess this conclusively proves Percy and Dr. Groves are wrong.

JayUtah
2002-Sep-02, 09:14 PM
Well, there's one on his other boot. The right boot doesn't have a hotspot because it's angled downward. The most convincing argument against the Davids is the total lack of any other indication of a bright, point light source in the photo -- near-phase shadows, etc.

ICUranus
2002-Sep-03, 01:16 AM
On 2002-09-02 17:14, JayUtah wrote:
Well, there's one on his other boot. The right boot doesn't have a hotspot because it's angled downward. The most convincing argument against the Davids is the total lack of any other indication of a bright, point light source in the photo -- near-phase shadows, etc.



In this photo we see 'hot spots' on Aldrin's boots while he's on the LM footpad. Is this too caused by the lunar surface even though the hotspots are so close to it (lunar surface)?

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/as11-40-5869.jpg


You don't say much about the hot spot in as11-40-5869 (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/as11-40-5869.jpg). Is the cause the same in every hot spot we see on Aldrin's boots?

From Clavius:Note A. This is the "hot spot" Percy says is being caused by the fill light. This indicates that Percy's postulated lighting design applies to this photograph too.

http://www.clavius.org/img/buzzftpad.jpg

If the cause of all the 'hot spots' are from the same (from the right?), why do we see a hard-edged shadow on the right of the egress hatch, (the hard edged shadow is kind of curiousity to me in itself)?

From Clavius:We have shown that a light which would produce the hot spot would also produce hard-edged shadows which simply aren't there.

I can dodge the shadow out of AS11-40-5866 but, obviously, can't post it here afterwards.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/as11-40-5863.jpg

ICU

JayUtah
2002-Sep-03, 04:16 PM
Is this too caused by the lunar surface even though the hotspots are so close to it (lunar surface)?

I don't believe the hot spot is caused in any case by diffuse reflection or backscatter from the lunar surface. It is my conclusion that the hot spot is caused by the reflection from Armstrong's space suit. This would explain why it is so bright (Chromel is highly reflective) and so localized.

I believe the general, soft lighting on the rest of Aldrin's suit is coming from the lunar surface. The shading and shadow cues are fairly conclusive. I believe some fill lighting may also be provided by the suit.

Is the cause the same in every hot spot we see on Aldrin's boots?

I believe the cause of the hot spot in the Aldrin egress photos is the same in every photo, and I believe that cause to be Armstrong's suit.

In attempting to formulate explanations for things, the stronger explanation is that which explains all instances of a phenomenon, not simply the example given. So if Groves and Percy claim supplementary lighting was used to produce the hot spot in one of those photos, we require this explanation to hold for all photos that display a hot spot. (It is unacceptable to postulate a different cause for each instance of the hot spot.)

We apply this logic because Groves and Percy have treated the evidence selectively. When we introduce the other egress photos as evidence, we note that their hypothesis begins to fall apart. That is, the hot spot is present in the photo of Aldrin on the footpad. This, according to their explanation, suggests a supplementary fill light was used, and the light was placed approximately two feet to the right of the camera.

Lights placed very close to the optical axis produce what we have termed near-phase shadows. This is common in amateur photography where the flash is most often attached to the camera. The shadows produced with this lighting setup very closely follow the boundaries of the foreground objects. It is a distinctive feature, and it is totally absent from these photos.

Further, the lighting is consistent with being lit from the lunar surface and not consistent with being lit from in front. The lower portion of Aldrin's legs is dark. He has not yet got the suit dirty, so this is purely a lighting effect. If he were being lit softly from the front (and how you do that with a point light source is still something no lighting designer can figure out) his shins would be as well lit as his thighs and torso. However, if the fill light source is the lunar surface his shins would not be lighted. That's because he is in shadow.

Imagine being able to magically walk over to Aldrin and put your head down by his shins. How much of the lit lunar surface could you see from there? Not a lot. You would be too close to the surface and the basic form factor principle of diffuse reflection would render your view of the lit lunar surface a small sliver.

Now imagine standing up right there. How much more of the lit lunar surface could you then see? Lots more, because you're higher up. This is the basic idea of form factors. Aldrin's shins are dark because they themselves are in shadow, and not much light from the lit lunar surface a few feet away is traveling horizontally to reach them. Aldrin's arm is bright because the light from the surface a few feet away can travel more vertically -- more perpendicularly away from it.

Finally, Aldrin's arm is shaded on the top. This is wholly inconsistent with a light source near the photographer. The light creating that shade is clearly coming from below the arm and slightly in the foreground. It cannot be coming from the vicinity of the photographer.

If the cause of all the 'hot spots' are from the same (from the right?), why do we see a hard-edged shadow on the right of the egress hatch, (the hard edged shadow is kind of curiousity to me in itself)?

Look more closely. That's not a hard-edged shadow, or a shadow of any kind. It's a metal panel attached to the LM. You can even see the fasteners which hold it in place.

That is one feature commonly mistaken for a shadow. The other is the crease in the "ceiling" of the porch area.

ICUranus
2002-Sep-04, 07:52 AM
I believe the cause of the hot spot in the Aldrin egress photos is the same in every photo, and I believe that cause to be Armstrong's suit.

I misread your website about this, sorry.


Look more closely. That's not a hard-edged shadow, or a shadow of any kind. It's a metal panel attached to the LM. You can even see the fasteners which hold it in place.

This is news to me, I always thought this was a shadow. I haven't seen this metal panel in any other photo other than the Aldrin egress or the LM at that angle on the lunar surface. Can you post some? I can't find any.

ICU

JayUtah
2002-Sep-04, 04:18 PM
Let's make sure we're talking about the same feature. I'm looking at the feature underneath the bottom corner of the commander's window, just below where the skin material changes from black to aluminum, 1.3 fiducials right and 0.8 fiducials up from center.

ICUranus
2002-Sep-04, 10:51 PM
On 2002-09-04 12:18, JayUtah wrote:
Let's make sure we're talking about the same feature. I'm looking at the feature underneath the bottom corner of the commander's window, just below where the skin material changes from black to aluminum, 1.3 fiducials right and 0.8 fiducials up from center.



Yes, that's it. I'd say you're right because of the fasteners. What are the odds that all of the fasteners will line up with the 'shadow'?



ICU

JayUtah
2002-Sep-04, 11:12 PM
Look very closely at the bottom edge of the feature, where it meets the side panel of the forward equipment assembly. What are the odds that a shadow will cast a shadow? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

ICUranus
2002-Sep-05, 12:08 AM
On 2002-09-04 19:12, JayUtah wrote:
Look very closely at the bottom edge of the feature, where it meets the side panel of the forward equipment assembly. What are the odds that a shadow will cast a shadow? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif



I see it now. After finally getting it pictured, it doesn't look nothing like a shadow at all.

ICU

Appolyon
2002-Sep-14, 06:10 AM
Here's a site that offers what I think is the most natural explanation for the alleged "hot spot," even if only indirectly: http://www.geocities.com/rocket_man_2020/NA_images.html

Particularly interesting is a photo about 30% down the page, which shows Neil Armstrong lowering his forward face shield. The caption reads: "As he begins to spend most of his time out of the shadow of the Lunar Module, Armstrong lowers his visor to protect his eyes from the blinding glare of the sun." (Emphasis mine.)

In the next photo, Armstrong has also lowered the side visor on his helmet because the sunlight is so strong.

In short, it ain't dark up there. But just in case sunlight and earthshine weren't adequate to light things up, they had a light source for the cameras.

Armstrong took most of the still pictures himself, using a specially modified Hasselblad. A battery-powered electronic flash provided illumination. You can see the camera, which is attached to Armstrong's EMU, on the same site I've linked above.

My best non-scientific guess? If there's a reflection of light that doesn't seem to come from the sun, the earth, or a reflection from the moon's surface, it was probably coming directly from the flash.

I think the correct response to hoax believers would be along the lines of, "Yeah, like they went all that way to take pictures, and didn't take flash cubes? Duh!"

ICUranus
2002-Sep-14, 12:08 PM
I never thought of this before but there are no 'tourist' photos of Armstrong next to the flag. First man on the moon and we get no pictures of him next to ol' glory? Proposterous, must be a good reason.


http://www.geocities.com/rocket_man_2020/A11_NA_US_flag_1.jpg
Caption: July 20th 1969 the first man on the moon Neil Armstrong beside the US flag, the image that never was!

ToSeek
2002-Sep-14, 01:33 PM
On 2002-09-14 08:08, ICUranus wrote:


I never thought of this before but there are no 'tourist' photos of Armstrong next to the flag. First man on the moon and we get no pictures of him next to ol' glory? Proposterous, must be a good reason.

Yes: there was only one camera, and Armstrong had it.

Appolyon
2002-Sep-14, 05:14 PM
And in this photo, we can all at least see what a fake looks like.

This also brings to mind the fact that one of the most famous photos of Armstrong on the moon is one in which he is reflected in the gold visor plate on Buzz Aldrin's helmet -- Buss had the shield down because the sunlight was so blindingly bright, else there would have been no famous image.

Who'd have thought in advance to fake something like that?

infocusinc
2002-Sep-14, 07:03 PM
On 2002-09-14 02:10, Appolyon wrote:
images.html


In short, it ain't dark up there. But just in case sunlight and earthshine weren't adequate to light things up, they had a light source for the cameras.

Armstrong took most of the still pictures himself, using a specially modified Hasselblad. A battery-powered electronic flash provided illumination. You can see the camera, which is attached to Armstrong's EMU, on the same site I've linked above.



This is a new one one me. And in any case, if there were a flash, where are the shadows it would have cast and more importantly where are the HIGHLIGHTS?

Appolyon
2002-Sep-14, 10:47 PM
In sunlight described as "blinding," even the best flash I've ever seen does nothing but provide fill. Which is, probably not wholly by coincidence, the issue the hoax believers dwell on when trying to disprove these photos.

I was surprised to read on a hoax site in just the past couple of days that the moon photos were shot "supposedly" using only sunlight to light the scene, so where did the fill come from and yadda yadda yadda.

I don't know where the supposition had its genisis, but it's inacccurate from the root. There was a battery powered electronic flash for the specially modified still camera Armstrong used. I'll have to double check, but I don't believe the Hasselblad was the only camera they took along. I mean, what if they'd gottent hat far with only one camera, and the film jammed?

Getting back to the fill light issue, most of the flash would, for want of a better term, just be absorbed by the general light, which is brighter than the flash, remember. The flash would not be bright enough, for instance, to cast noticable shadows. All it could do would be soften the edges of shadows that were there, anyway. But it could conceivably be bright enough to bounce off a reflective surface directly in its path and range, particularly if that surface happened to be in the shade, as it were, and not directly lit by the sun.

You can create a microcosm of the same effect by taking pictures with your own camera in strong sunlight, using your flash for fill. You won't get strong shadows and highlights as a result of using the flash, just a diffuse softening effect. And you'll see how objects already in the shade of a brighter light tend to remain in the shadow even when you use the flash. However, if you place a small reflective object in the shade, but directly in line with your flash, you could see a "hot spot" in the photo.

johnwitts
2002-Sep-15, 02:17 AM
There was no flash taken to the Moon. The fill in is most likely from the Lunar surface and the hot spot from Armstrong's suit.

Dana_Mix
2002-Dec-05, 01:30 AM
On 2002-09-02 17:14, JayUtah wrote:
Well, there's one on his other boot. The right boot doesn't have a hotspot because it's angled downward. The most convincing argument against the Davids is the total lack of any other indication of a bright, point light source in the photo -- near-phase shadows, etc.



What else besides near-phase shadows is missing?

Dana

JayUtah
2002-Dec-05, 01:35 AM
Other specular highlights, for example.

johnwitts
2002-Dec-05, 10:29 PM
All that reflective mylar on the descent stage would be lit up like a christmas tree had a flash been used. There would have been billions of reflections off the 'facets' in the wrinkled mylar. It seems strange that this bright, point source flash would produce a hotspot on a rubber boot and not on highly reflecive metalic surfaces of the LM. Besides, using a flash or a spotlight by the camera is probably the stupidest way to light this scene if it indeed needed to be backlit to fill in the shadows. It would illuminate the ground by Aldrin's feet for a start. It's not that a flash couldn't produce the hot spot on the boot that is the issue here, it's the 800 other things that a flash would do that are absent from the pictures that count.

JayUtah
2002-Dec-05, 10:53 PM
The term "fill light" derives from the lighting theory used in film and television, which differs slightly from the theory of stage lighting. The goal in each case is to reveal the contour of the subject and to manipulate the subject's visual relationship to its environment.

On the stage we have to create the illusion of shade by using color. This is because theater sightlines usually dictate that a subject will be seen simultaneously from many different angles. Thus we light a subject from opposite angles using contrasting colors. The subject is illuminated in some way regardless of the viewing angle.

In film and television the sightline is rigorously controlled, but there are technical limitations having to do with contrast, latitude, and exposure. This requires a cetain minimum level of ambient light in order to effect the photographic exposure. But in order to create contour, light must be applied from a significant phase angle. This is the "key light" -- the brightest light, used to cast the primary shadows.

The "fill" light is the dimmer light applied to the shaded side of the subject to "soften" (i.e., make brighter) the shaded side. Fill light is best applied in a highly diffuse manner so that it doesn't cast shadows itself. This is especially true if you are trying to simulate natural light.

A light is diffused by bouncing it off of a very large reflector, or by passing it through a large diffuser. Spun gauze, cloudy plastic, and other substances are frequently used as diffusers. Silver gauze and gray paper are commonly used as reflectors. Incidentally Chromel works very well as a photographic reflector, but it's a bit too aggressive for most applications.

The problem with Percy's claim is that he -- through David Groves -- asserts that the postulated light is in a very precise location. A diffuse light by definition cannot be in a precise location. Thus Percy is caught between a rock and a hard place. He needs to convey the sense of scientific precision, but he can only do that by admitting that the postulated fill light is not being diffused.

And the lack of diffusion now creates additional headaches for him because an undiffused small light will cast shadows and produce sharp hot spots, none of which is visible -- except for the one hot spot Percy sees in Aldrin's shoe.

The main fill is obviously being provided by the lunar surface, with Armstrong's suit casting additional light. These are diffuse light sources by nature; they do not create hot spots or cast shadows.

But why, then, the hot spot on Aldrin's shoe? Because the surface is convex. While diffuse, Armstrong's suit is still a source of light with a measurable location and physical extent. The convex shape of the shoe narrows the "image" of Armstrong's suit to the point where it appears very thin. This effect is familar to anyone who has been in an amusement park's "house of mirrors", or to anyone who looks at his reflection in the back of a spoon.

But if the convex shoe narrows the image of a light source, could not then Percy's postulated fill light really be a large artificial light source? Yes, it could be, but then Percy's claim to be able to precisely locate it goes right out the window. With that precision lost, Percy cannot argue that the fill lighting is something next to the suit and not the suit itself.

In short, Percy's argument is inconsistent and insufficient. Does he care? No.