Shadow Analysis by a PHD.

[TexMex]

Over on aulis.net, there area few articles where the author is a PHD in Physics.   
http://aulis.com/raytracing_as11.htm
http://www.aulis.com/raytracing.htm

In some ways it's the usual ""shadows are not parallel", but in other ways it's very technical and well thought out.

I have sent email to the author at his university email address and confirmed he did write them. (please don't dig up his dress and email him) I am exchanging emails with him and attempting to have a civilized conversation about it.

I am posting it here to see if I can get some help teasing out the problems in the paper.

[bknight]

Anything that is published at aulis is 100% BS.  They have no science, just "PhD"'s that purport to have discovered anomalies in the Apollo program.  Don't waste your time, I suspect his doctorate is questionable at best.  What accreditations does his Alma Mater have? What is his doctorate in?
I'm not going to watch anything again at aulis, since they won't allow comments about any subject presented, why do you think this is?  Are they afraid to stand up to criticism of their work?

Please post the image number from the ALSJ and include what remarks are associated with them.

[Zakalwe]

Non parallel shadows here. I must have faked this photo*






*I didnt.

[peter eldergill]

But you*must* have faked it. There can be no other explanation 

[JayUtah]

Over on aulis.net, there area few articles where the author is a PHD in Physics.

I doubt that.  Aulis has been notorious for more than 20 years for hosting or relying upon mostly-anonymous experts whose credentials either cannot be determined, or which can be determined to be false or irrelevant.  If the author wishes us to take him seriously as an expert, he will need to provide the customary substantiation of his qualifications.

Further, "physics" is a vast field.  If the author wishes us to accept a doctoral degree in physics as qualification to perform photogrammetric rectification on a photograph as a means of testing the authenticity of photographs, he will need to show specific evidence of adjudicated research or other expertise in that narrow field.  I do not accept claims to a PhD in physics as simply an assurance that the author is a very smart person who has probably got the right answer, regardless of subject.  Photogrammetric rectification is not a subject taught to physics students at any level.  It is a practical skill one must learn aside from that, proficiency in which must be separately demonstrated.

http://aulis.com/raytracing_as11.htm

The method here is generally correct.  But the author provides no error analysis to determined how precisely he can locate critical points on the shadows in the photograph.  Instead he attributes all error in the result to a question of authenticity.  This is entirely unscientific.

http://www.aulis.com/raytracing.htm

The method here is incorrect.

In some ways it's the usual ""shadows are not parallel", but in other ways it's very technical and well thought out.

No, not really.  The standard for "well thought out" in the sense of coming from a physics professor is the ability to provide the appropriate scientific controls, which here are completely absent.  It's just "shadows are not parallel" with a whole lot of dazzling math thrown in to make the audience think the author is well-qualified.  The author may have the degree he purports, but there is little if any scientific rigor in the two papers.  This is probably why he has elected to publish them in a venue where they will probably not be examined closely or questioned.

I am posting it here to see if I can get some help teasing out the problems in the paper.

I intend no offense, but it's my opinion that asking us to supply you with arguments for a debate you are having with someone else, whom you forbid us to contact directly, is improper.

[JayUtah]

All the scholarly citations I can find for this person deal with high-energy plasma physics.  There is only one citation that could be remotely considered relevant to optics, and it does not deal with photogrammetric rectification.

I do not consider this individual properly qualified in the sciences that apply to the papers he has published at Aulis.  Any review of his work at Aulis by us here will have to stipulate that his is the work of a lay amateur.

[bobdude11]

Once again, Jay puts everything into perspective!

[JayUtah]

Once again, Jay puts everything into perspective!

I saw what you did there.

[Abaddon]

Non parallel shadows here. I must have faked this photo*






*I didnt.

Permission to shamelessly swipe requested.

[Abaddon]

Photogrammetric rectification is not a subject taught to physics students at any level.  It is a practical skill one must learn aside from that, proficiency in which must be separately demonstrated.

Yep. The physical characteristics of slot vs. philips vs. torx vs. whatever screws are well known. They don't much help when confronted with a wrung or dethreaded screw of any type.

In that way, photographs are all fundamentally dethreaded screws.

[Dalhousie]

Further, "physics" is a vast field.  If the author wishes us to accept a doctoral degree in physics as qualification to perform photogrammetric rectification on a photograph as a means of testing the authenticity of photographs, he will need to show specific evidence of adjudicated research or other expertise in that narrow field.  I do not accept claims to a PhD in physics as simply an assurance that the author is a very smart person who has probably got the right answer, regardless of subject.

Indeed.  I had a series of conversations recently with a very smart guy with a PhD in astrophysics on FB (his expertise checked out).

In one he was arguing the Chang'e 4 far side landing was a fake based on shadow "anomalies", the supposed absence of any research by Chinese scientists on the Chang,e missions, and the fact you can't trust the Chinese government. 

In another he was arguing against crewed missions to mars for various reasons, during which he indicated he thought that a Mars mission would consist of two or three people, would be sent every six months, would encounter lethal radiation, and that it was very difficult to bring people back.  There were clearly ideological reasons at stake with him, but his ignorance and arrogance were both remarkable.

[gillianren]

That's a lovely photo, Zakalwe!

[TexMex]

I like your photo, but I like like my shadows like my ladies, with curves.

Non parallel shadows here. I must have faked this photo*






*I didnt.

[TexMex]

Over on aulis.net, there area few articles where the author is a PHD in Physics.

I doubt that.  Aulis has been notorious for more than 20 years for hosting or relying upon mostly-anonymous experts whose credentials either cannot be determined, or which can be determined to be false or irrelevant.  If the author wishes us to take him seriously as an expert, he will need to provide the customary substantiation of his qualifications.

Further, "physics" is a vast field.  If the author wishes us to accept a doctoral degree in physics as qualification to perform photogrammetric rectification on a photograph as a means of testing the authenticity of photographs, he will need to show specific evidence of adjudicated research or other expertise in that narrow field.  I do not accept claims to a PhD in physics as simply an assurance that the author is a very smart person who has probably got the right answer, regardless of subject.  Photogrammetric rectification is not a subject taught to physics students at any level.  It is a practical skill one must learn aside from that, proficiency in which must be separately demonstrated.

His PHD seems to be valid, You can see published worked here.  https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=nPFZCowAAAAJ&hl=en  My primary interest is in discussing the paper.  I mentioned his PHD because it is somewhat unusual in my experience.  Not in an attempt to make you accept it.

http://aulis.com/raytracing_as11.htm

The method here is generally correct.  But the author provides no error analysis to determined how precisely he can locate critical points on the shadows in the photograph.  Instead he attributes all error in the result to a question of authenticity.  This is entirely unscientific.

I mentioned this to him.   I asked to see historical photographs from other events that he had examined in a similar manner and how many he had proven real vs. proven false.  He said he had only examined Apollo photos.  I pointed out the fallacy of using a method that had never revealed positive results and could not be measured for accuracy.  I also pointed out many of the lines drawn did not seem to correspond to any defined point on the astronaut or shadow. 

I also pointed out he had not taken into account the use of a wide angle lens and the inherent distortion produced.  By attempting to locate the sun in the film plane he was essentially extending that distortion into areas the lens could not even resolve.   Also, his sample photo of the girl with hands raised was very different from the examined photo, and did not use a wide angle lens or subject close to the camera.

http://www.aulis.com/raytracing.htm

The method here is incorrect.

I thought this paper was much more strange than the first.  The lines drawn along the photos seem to to be almost random at times.  He also seems to using the estimated position of the shadow of the camera as the starting position of some lines.  I have never seen that, and can't imagine why he would do this.  I pointed out his use of a flat foot and glass door to create a photograph with straight lines and right angles more whole different than the Apollo photo examined than one would think possible. 

In some ways it's the usual "shadows are not parallel", but in other ways it's very technical and well thought out.

No, not really.  The standard for "well thought out" in the sense of coming from a physics professor is the ability to provide the appropriate scientific controls, which here are completely absent.  It's just "shadows are not parallel" with a whole lot of dazzling math thrown in to make the audience think the author is well-qualified.  The author may have the degree he purports, but there is little if any scientific rigor in the two papers.  This is probably why he has elected to publish them in a venue where they will probably not be examined closely or questioned.

You are taking me a little too literally here.  I could do the same with your "standard" but it seems petty.  I did point out to him the venue did not allow for comments and provided no contact information.  That it did not encourage healthy discussion in general.  He agreed but also pointed out he was discussing the topic with me via email. 

I am posting it here to see if I can get some help teasing out the problems in the paper.

I intend no offense, but it's my opinion that asking us to supply you with arguments for a debate you are having with someone else, whom you forbid us to contact directly, is improper.

I am in no way offended.  The venue here invites discussion and my efforts in that regard are at least somewhat successful. "forbid" seems a little strong vs. my "please" but I understand your point.  Your comments above are helpful thank you.

[Dalhousie]

His PHD seems to be valid, You can see published worked here.  https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=nPFZCowAAAAJ&hl=en  My primary interest is in discussing the paper.  I mentioned his PHD because it is somewhat unusual in my experience.  Not in an attempt to make you accept it.

Ironically several of his papers are in space physics, specially in the physics of the magnetosphere.  These use data from spacecraft missions, in particular Cluster.