Re: Half Dome from Patterson, CA., 90 miles away.

I admit that I stole this topic from the Whitney Portal Store Board, but its such an intriguing photo and commentary, I felt that it was worthy of the import. (Perhaps Master Eeek could extract the photo for quick viewing?) Anyhow, Tony Immoos, the photographer, has done a fantastic job of capturing this wonderful pic of Halfdome as seen from the Valley (edit) thru a telephoto lens.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/trimmoos/3294080995/in/set-72157603775162264/

PS There is much discussion as to the authenticity of the photo, but consensus has it that it is the real deal.


B



Post Edited (03-21-09 00:17)

---

The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.

It looks authentic to me. Here is a link to a similar pic at about 120 miles away from Mt. Hamilton, I believe. The azimuth for both pictures is almost identical.
http://home.mchsi.com/~lookoutvistas/DiabloHam.htm

(Sorry and can' t seem to figure out how to make this a clickable link)



Post Edited (03-18-09 12:16)

I'm looking at this from a trigonometric point of view but I'm at work right now so I'll spend more time on this when I get home in a couple hrs...

Use all right angle trig to make it easier. Assuming that's Glacier Point at 7200 feet and Half Dome at 8800 feet, with the photographer 60 miles away at sea level (more or less, from that distance doesn't really matter much), the top of Glacier Point (2.5 miles closer than Half Dome) would appear only 0.71 degrees lower than Half Dome. This doesn't account for curvature of the earth, either, which would make the angle even less.

More calculations to do, but I think it's easier to look at several photos of Half Dome from the Glacier Point area and compare them. I think the photo is hoaxed. Be back in a couple!

maybe read this before you break your sliderule.

http://www.eliasphoto.blogspot.com/



Post Edited (03-18-09 16:01)

Yeah, I saw that photo too...still not believing it...

Looking at it from the other direction, I have further doubts:

If that's Half Dome, where's El Cap? I don't believe it.

Jim

Quote
eeek

It almost looks too perfect to be real. Would be fun to hunt down this very spot, however.

Hall Road in Turlock

---

Old Dude

Quote
mrcondron
Hall Road in Turlock

About how far is that silo from the road? I figure it must look pretty tiny without zoom, for it to end up that size relative to Half Dome with zoom.

El Cap is in the picture too.. plain as day...

Take a look at this link too:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/yzavala/sets/72157614402790202/

The angle of the dangle and everything looks too spot on.

btw. You can plainly see Modesto lights from the ridge SE of Kibbie Lake.
And you can see the Coastal Range easily from Piute Mountain.

I couldn't believe that HD was soooo clear in the Lick photo. But have
been up there and seen it with my own eyeballs.

HD looks monstorously huge.
And the foreground looks too "perfect".

But it's a beautiful photo nontheless even if doctor'ed or whatnot.

I'm just a caveman, sliderule taste yummy...

joe_schmo wrote:

> I'm just a caveman, sliderule taste yummy...

I'm just glad I have better tools these days.

i live even closer than Patterson, and i have never been able to see Half Dome from here under any condition.

Eeek:>I'm just glad I have better tools these days. (Sliderule)

My dad gave me a box of old drafting tools (which I still use) and in that box were three slide rules (which I have no clue how to use)

As far as the largesse of Half Dome, its interesting how it appears different even when viewed at relatively close distances, but different angles. It looks huge from Sentinal Dome, but it looks monstrous from Glacier Point -- much different even tho the two vistas are not THAT far apart (imo). How much higher in total elevation is Half Dome than El Cap? Maybe looking upward from the Valley exaggerates that difference?

B

How could this



look so huge from the other side on the Central Valley?

Quote
Bee
As far as the largesse of Half Dome, its interesting how it appears different even when viewed at relatively close distances, but different angles. It looks huge from Sentinal Dome, but it looks monstrous from Glacier Point -- much different even tho the two vistas are not THAT far apart (imo).

From Sentinel Dome and the Glacier Point area respectively, taken about a month apart. I think I was using the same zoom (minimum!) for both but I'm not certain:

Quote

How much higher in total elevation is Half Dome than El Cap? Maybe looking upward from the Valley exaggerates that difference?

Sentinel Dome: 8122

Glacier Point: 7214

Half Dome: 8836

El Cap: 7569

Those are from this topo map.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/13/2012 03:28PM by gophersnake.

Yo, Vince, fire up those calculations...

B

What troubles me about the photo is the relation between Half Dome and the mountains behind it. If you look at these aerial shots of Half Dome, it would appear that the view of Half Dome from Patterson would more likely to have been taken from a plane in the West Portal area looking down onto Half Dome. The photos below are from the web attributed to photos from planes.












for credit to photographers:
http://www.flyingjim.com/images/Yosemite.jpg

http://www.goodflying.com/flightlog/images/sierra/yosemite2.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1138/809399376_f905d2b012.jpg?v=0


Also, If the grain elevator (which is almost level with top of Half Dome) is about 100 ft high and 1000 ft away from the photographer
by my crude calculations, the top of Half Dome 90 miles away would have to be 45,000 ft high.

So, I am voting against the validity of this Patterson photo.

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

There are more technical/computer generated pix and analysis on this page from the origininal discussion on the topic:

<http://www.whitneyportalstore.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=59083#Post59083>;

B



Post Edited (03-18-09 18:45)

---

The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.

I made a photo (see below) of a huge wall map I have of California and drew a line (digitally, not on the map) using the location of the photographer and going up to Half Dome. I noticed this probably is the same angle the setting sun makes in late Feb. to light up Horsetail Fall.

Too hard to tell if anything was in the way by that map (1:500,000 or one inch to eight miles), even though it is a topo map, so went to Google Earth, started at Half Dome and carefully backed up to Turlock, noting any ridges that might get in the way of the view of HD, noted the GPS coordinates of those ridges and their altitude. I flew backwards from the valley at an eye altitude of 4900 feet.

Then I adjusted for Turlock's altitude (169 ft). Finding out if those ridges would block HD is a matter of a simple ratio: (Height of ridge/Distance from Turlock*Distance to Half Dome)

Half Dome at 37.744194N, 119.5350444W, 8631 ft. above photog in Turlock
Turlock location at 37.5414388N, 120.7370249N, by GPS calculator
Turlock location was 67.141818 miles away from HD or 354,772.79 feet

OK now for the ridges. I am ignoring curvature of the earth in all this but I don't think it would make a lot of difference.

Ridge 1 at 18.4311 miles away and 744 (minus 169 for Turlock) elevation extrapolates at Half Dome's distance to being only 2096 feet up, which wouldn't even make a line in Midpines much less HD.

Ridge 2 at 23.13986 miles away and 1166 feet extrapolates to 2904.98 ft. up

Ridge 3 at 26.087954 miles and 1165 feet comes up to 2622 ft. at 67 miles

Ridge 4 at 29.9152 miles and 1792 feet gets you just outside the valley at 3645.3613 feet up

Ridge 5 at 37.20834 miles and 2269 elev makes a line outside the valley at 3792.20 feet

Ridge 6 at 46.01829 miles out and 3000 elev finally touches just above the base of Half Dome at 4,133.56 feet.

Based on this, there is nothing from Turlock to Half Dome to block the view of Half Dome!

Taking into consideration the earth's curvature, those line elevations would raise slightly but would be negligible for this silly, time consuming argument.

As far as why Half Dome looks so big, in an extreme telephoto environment, background always looms larger. Think of a triangle inside a triangle. As you narrow the field of view in the foreground (in this case, the silo) then you also narrow the field of view of the background, and suddenly Half Dome grows to appear as a giant.

I too am still troubled by the actual photo when compared to those taken from Glacier or the Yosemite Falls trail, where the background mountains just don't add up. Still need to do some head scratching on this despite the numbers.

---

Everything I know I learned from

Same spot. 10x Optical Zoom.

---

Everything I know I learned from

Found this link. The photographer was using digital zoom and hooked up the camera to one side of 12x24 binoculars

http://www.flickr.com/photos/yzavala/sets/72157614402790202/detail/

Turlock is right in the correct path.
The long red line is from Copernicus Peak by Mt. Hamilton.
(it goes straight thru Turlock)
The blue line is from Taylor and 99 where he said he could see HD.
The smaller red line is where I took the pix above.



If you want to zoom in some:
<http://picasaweb.google.com/dale.dekeyser/YosemiteSignsMosaics#>;

Vince, Joe Schmo said the same thing above...

Yeah sorry, too many links flying by on this one. The whitney portal store discussion is good, too

A possible line of sight does not validate the photo. How can El Capitan appear to be 1/3 the height of Half Dome when supposedly closer to the site of photographer, viewed from a lower elevation and at great distance? The appearance of Half Dome and El Capitan is more consistent with an aerial photo. In addition, the sharp line across middle ground representing the foothills add additional suspicion to the photo and suggests creative editing.

The picasaweb photos look more like cloud artifact.

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

Correction,
The Flickr series digital zoom, not Picasa web, appears to be cloud artifact:

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

If you open up another window and place the blurry photo next to the good one, the could artifact half dome is in the same place that the poser half dome is. (Its a conspiracy)

B

Well, using Google Earth, I could see no obstructions. But you really need one mighty good telephoto, like maybe Hubble's planetary camera.

I think the photo's author admitted to doing some cleanup to draw out the background a little better. Will be interesting to see this play out in the days ahead.

Also, you can't see all of Half Dome (if it is HD), only the part above the massive talus. You're probably seeing only the top 1300 feet or so at the most (the Diving Board is 1,200 feet below the summit). Don't forget HD rises 4800 ft. from the valley floor.

Even having done all the a^2+b^2=c^2, I'm still a skeptic on this one.

The more I hop about the internet looking at these photos the more I think they are faked. These folks doing this are professional photoshoppers. Look at their other work.

Skeptical more by the minute (but I stand by my calculations)

Here, take a look at the angles on Half Dome:

First, a cropped version of the one from Turlock:



And this one from the USGS web site taken from Glacier Point:



Pretty obvious an aerial photo was shopped into the background of a nice photo of a grain silo in Turlock

I am sending a recon "team" on a field trip to check this out. Boyfriend works in this region (its all been mapped out on topo -- complete with 77 degree compass reading) and he will be stopping periodically with military grade binocs and the D-3 with a zoom lens. Gonna get to the bottom of this one...

B

Tractors will be prepping the fields for a spring planting of alfalfa when they get there LOL

Perhaps I can share a bit of enlightenment. When rare arctic weather fronts visit central California, they clear out the smog and provide incredible visibility. I seem to recall that you had such weather at some time in February...

In March, 1971, I was a senior at Cal State Stanislaus in Turlock. At that time, we experienced the aforementioned cold, crisp windy weather that allowed me to look up the Merced River Canyon to see Half Dome from the second story campus library building. I also recall someone pointing out another fact at the time: The university is located at the northwest corner of Geer Road and Monte Vista Avenue, and Monte Vista means "Mountain View." I more than suspect that Turlock residents of generations past with less smog frequently enjoyed their unique geographical location to view Yosemite from afar, and Monte Vista Avenue was very well named.

I also recall hearing someone say that Mt. Bullion quickly blocks the view as you move south, and other peaks to the north do the same.

I left Turlock in 1974 to accept a seasonal ranger position in Yellowstone, and moved to Cody, Wyoming several years later. I envy you people the opportunity to visit my beloved Yosemite. I visit your website frequently, but I haven't been to "Joe Schmidt Valley" since June, 2004. Enjoy!

Dearborn wrote:


> In March, 1971, I was a senior at Cal State Stanislaus in
> Turlock. At that time, we experienced the aforementioned cold,
> crisp windy weather that allowed me to look up the Merced River
> Canyon to see Half Dome from the second story campus library
> building.

Can you recall if this was with the unaided eye or was a binoculars/telescope used?

Turlock is about 15 miles closer to Yosemite than Patterson. Hard to believe that would make much difference, considering the distances. Did the mass of cold air produce any peculiar visual distortion that made far objects appear larger than closer objects?

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

Frank,

I contacted a number of friends in the Turlock area last night, and two have responded thus far this morning, one of them with,

"On most nonfoggy winter days I can see Half Dome From Geer Rd or Monte Vista and Santa Fe. I wonder if the picture was taken from Monpilier? As I recall grain silo and out building with that configuration."

The other friend grew up in Turlock, and said he recalled many occasions growing up in a time with far less smog where he could see Half Dome. In this day of Photo Shop, I suppose anything is possible with an image, but the unassailable fact is that Half Dome can be seen from Turlock, and by extension, Patterson.

This is an obvious hoax. I'm surprised there's a serious discussion about it.

Reminds me of a kid I grew up with here in California. He said that on a real clear night he could see the lights of New York City from a hill near his house.

Unless you can see through rock seeing HD from Patterson; or NYC from California are both impossible.

sierranomad wrote:

> This is an obvious hoax. I'm surprised there's a serious
> discussion about it.
>
> Reminds me of a kid I grew up with here in California. He said
> that on a real clear night he could see the lights of New York
> City from a hill near his house.
>
> Unless you can see through rock seeing HD from Patterson; or
> NYC from California are both impossible.
>

Thank you. Yes, I agree. That needed to be said!
Emperors Clothes

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

V-19..

http://www.yosemite.ca.us/library/auto_tour/yosemite_valley.html

"V-19 HALF DOME. Dominating the upper end of the valley is Half Dome, hallmark of Yosemite National Park. It marks the junction of
[click to enlarge]
Half Dome
Tenaya Creek (left) and the Merced River (right). Rising nearly one mile above the valley floor it is one of the most majestic rock forms known. On clear days it can be seen from places along Highway 99 in the San Joaquin Valley. Half Dome was climbed for the first time in October 1875 by George G. Anderson. Today hikers reach its 13-acre top in summer by a trail up the far (east) side with the aid of cables. The likeness of a great face on the 2000 foot high sheer surface gives rise to an interesting Indian legend, told in “Yosemite Indians.” (Take left-hand turn at intersection.)"

And the guy took it from TURLOCK. Only 70 miles away. Not Patterson.
But, hey the moon landing is a hoax too.
And the picture at Lick from Copernicus Peak is doctored.

Sure he pissed with the picture. But it's STILL pretty cool.

OK.
Yet another link and photo.
It's an obvious conspiracy and the earth is flat.

http://www.imagesinthebackcountry.com/blog/

---

Everything I know I learned from

What a complete and utter waste of time.

bill-e-g: Sure he pissed with the picture. But it's STILL pretty cool.

Precisely the reason I brought the pic here

>What a complete and utter waste of time.<

Sorry it went in that direction. Life is irritating enough on its own without further prodding...

B

I'm pretty sure it's a legitimate photo, at least there's nothing to show it isn't that I can spot. But the guy's not handling it very well, which doesn't help, and he's defeating his own purpose by calling people stupid, in essence.

I left a reply at the Whitney board about it that goes into why I think it's real and why this guy doesn't necessarily know as much as he professes, but it's a little long so I won't re-post it here. It's at
http://www.whitneyportalstore.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/59066/page/1/fpart/2
if interested. (Gary R. message)

The confusing part for so many people is the perspective. A dead giveaway to an aerial shot, as mentioned in the Whitney post, would be something near or behind Half Dome (a few miles) appearing higher than the peak of Half Dome, when it's in reality, not higher in altitude. I don't see anything like that. That doesn't mean it's legitimate, but I suspect it is.

---

Gary
Yosemite Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/roberthouse/yo

Gary,
I can understand him. Sooo many people are saying it's bollocks or
"you can't see HD from the Central Valley" it's tantamount to calling
him a complete and utter lier. But, as you can probably figure, my
feeling is that he is on the up and up.
Thus my comments about the moon landing, the earth is flat, etc.
Guess I could add Dinosaurs roaming the earth! What!
I mean it just seems that everyone in Turlock could scream, "yes, I've
seen Half Dome from here" and people still wouldn't believe it.
Thus my frustration. There are enough other photos out there.
Even in the Lick photo (which you can find in Cameron's "Above Yosemite"
book) HD looks monsterous.
O well. I've wasted enough time. Time to get to work.

I guess I need to put the "She's a witch!" link for the naysayers...



Post Edited (03-19-09 10:51)

---

Everything I know I learned from

My final post on this subject (I'm just going to go cold turkey):

The subject photo:



compare to known aerial shot:




The relations to the eastern terrain, el capitan, and other features are all wrong. Unless there is a lens that can magnify the distant without magnifying the near field (a computer could do that) I don't think there is any question of creative misrepresentation here.

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

Between Frank's posts and Vince's posts it is obvious that the mountain portion of the photo is from an aerial view. The view from Glacier Point shows Clouds Rest slightly lower than HD because Glacier Point is so much lower than HD. The doctored photo shows Clouds Rest dominating over HD. The degree of domination is so ridiculous it can only occur from a significant altitude looking down.

Jim

Frank Furter wrote:

Unless there is a lens that can
> magnify the distant without magnifying the near field (a
> computer could do that) I don't think there is any question of
> creative misrepresentation here.
>

You should read up on compression of depth of field in relation to focal length changes.

Frank Furter wrote:

> My final post on this subject (I'm just going to go cold
> turkey):
>
> The subject photo:
>
>
>
> compare to known aerial shot:
>
>
>
>
> The relations to the eastern terrain, el capitan, and other
> features are all wrong. Unless there is a lens that can
> magnify the distant without magnifying the near field (a
> computer could do that) I don't think there is any question of
> creative misrepresentation here.
>


Frank - with all due respect - everything looks spot-on to me. I can find an exact match for almost every single feature from either photo, and all look properly placed.

Bruce Jensen

---

Wilderness forever,
Bruce Jensen

> I can find an exact match for almost every single feature from
> either photo, and all look properly placed.
>
> Bruce Jensen
>



Bruce,

I am not sure which side you are arguing. However, you may be reading through the posts chronologically and may not have reached my "retraction" which lists my arguments in favor of the validity of the photo. I am a believer, based primarily on the information that the photographer was 1.5 miles from the grain elevator/silo building. I found it hard to understand how El Cap could be closer to the photographer yet appear lower in the silo photo taken from a much lower elevation. I tried to explain that issue in my post of March 20 @ 1952hrs where I summarized the issues and proofs as I saw them.

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

Me too.

You hoax people are funny.

Reminds me of the giant sequoia cut down and hauled to the Chicago Worlds Fair, and was labeled the California Hoax.

Here is a link to the Google Maps map I created of all the peaks and ridges I named in the composite picture. You can zoom in on the camera location and see exactly where it was taken. Camera location is on Hall Rd .6 mi south of Keys Rd. Grain Elevator is on Montpelier Rd, and is about 1.6 mile from the camera.

Check out this picture of a computer-generated view from the same camera location/elevation (Mike C in Las Vegas wrote the program, took him about a thousand hours!). Of course writing the code to match a photoshopped picture took him half that time. :-))




Post Edited (03-19-09 10:59)

---

. . Whitney Hikers Association . . .

Bill, I can see why he's frusrated, but with so many doctored photos being posted, people are skeptics. That doesn't mean they need to post a "this is phony" comment though, unless they have something concrete.

Frank, that aerial shot is really nice, wherever it's from...the shadows and lighting with the snow everywere are great.

You can see how objects that appear higher than Half Dome in the photo, really aren't higher in actual elevation, that's because of the higher vantage point. The perspective is different though, because it was taken closer. An analogy a lot of people can relate to is a baseball catcher-pitcher shot on TV. The catcher is in the foreground, and the pitcher appears huge.

If you were to use a wide angle lens for a photo of that catcher-pitcher, you'd have to move right behind the catcher to get him to fill the frame as much. Because of the wide angle of view of the lens, that pitcher would then appear as a tiny person in the distance. But move way back and use a telephoto lens, and have the catcher still the same size in the photo (but you're standing much farther away), and the pitcher will then appear huge.

Photographers use that priciple a lot to control how a shot looks. Getting up close with a wide angle lens exaggerates distance, and moving back with a telephoto compresses it, in effect. A too-close wide angle shot of someone's face makes their nose look big and features look unpleasant. This shot appears odd because of the extreme telephoto used, and I admit it looks phony, but it only looks that way.

---

Gary
Yosemite Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/roberthouse/yo

Well, I know for sure that you can see the Central Valley from the top of Clouds Rest; here are two photos from a pretty hazy evening:

http://rosano.com/yosemite/7-17-05_HalfDome_8.05pm.jpg
http://rosano.com/yosemite/7-17-05_CentralValley_9.24pm.jpg

65-80 miles visibility on a really clear day is very reasonable; I can see 50 miles from Mt. Tamalpais to Mt. St. Helena on most trips to the top of Tam.

I think the photos from the valley are authentic.

I guess this sceptic lacks an appreciation for the warped effects of high power telephoto photographs. Maybe HD can be seen from Patterson. I'd like to see it through my 14.5" diameter astronomical scope but that's not going to happen due to the logistics. At least the narrow field of view provided by such a scope would eliminate most distortion. The level of distortion seen in the photo just keeps blowing my mind.

Jim

As vdrummer's photos show, this may be easier to visualise looking out from the top of Half Dome. This can be done using GoogleEarth. Tilt and rotate your view so you are looking over HD and down the valley. Adjust so you are at 8800 ft. and the top of HD almost touches the horizon. A large swath of the central valley is in view and if you travel out on that heading you will find yourself near Turlock and Patterson.

The geometry works, just add clean air.



Post Edited (03-19-09 17:13)

Maybe this will help:

Left=35mm equivalent wide angle
Right=420mm equivalent telephoto



Both Buzz and Woody stayed in the same spot (about 3' apart, I moved closer (a few inches) for the first photo, farther for the telephoto (about 10' away).

I guess I should have matched up the wheels on both for a 'same height' shot, but didn' t think of it..But Buzz would be Half Dome, Woody the silo. The blur is unimportant because I was shooting close, and at long distances something a mile away and 70 miles away would both be in focus.

---

Gary
Yosemite Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/roberthouse/yo

Sierrafan: >Maybe this will help<

Ummm...does this support the plausability of the photo.......? I forgot which "side" you were on!

B

Bee wrote:

> Ummm...does this support the plausability of the photo.......?
> I forgot which "side" you were on!

Bee, stay focused!

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

szalkowski: Bee, stay focused!

I have reached the point where I am relating much more closely to those blurry half dome pix with the cloud artifacts.....!

B

I' m planning a camping trip for Kings Canyon as soon as the 180 opens, I think I'm just going to have to stop in Turlock to see for myself....

I've been following this thread, as well as responding on another board.

I believe the photo is real.

However, I believe the photo is a misrepresentation, although not a deliberate one on the part of the photographer.

When I say misrepresentation, I refer to the way I think about nature photography: representing the natural world, and what you would see if you were there. This photo does not, although the author never made a claim that it did.

If you look at the "subject photograph", you see the silo, about 2 miles away, and HD, about 60 miles away. The magnification give the appearance of the silo, as it would look, 0.2 miles away, and HD, about 6 miles. (ten-fold magnification) The appearance is that if you walk the 0.2 miles to the silo, that when you look beyond, you will see this scene, without the silo. You will not, because HD is not 5.8 miles beyond the silo, it is 58 miles. (please forgive my use of approximate/rounded mileage)

So, can you see HD from the location? I think yes, although not easily.
Can you see the view presented in the "subject photo"....absolutely not.

I don't think that anyone was trying to pull a fast one, or a hoax.
But you can't see that view.

KenM: I don't think that anyone was trying to pull a fast one, or a hoax.

As the hijacker of the origninal topic, I give a long collective sigh and say: Yes, I completely agree with you. As a designer of landscapes, it is my job to study, understand, plot (there is actually a formal method for placement of objects before actually drawing them), and draw perspective renderings that accurately represent size, distance, and relativity (amongst the objects). At first glance at the photo, I saw right away that it screamed of extreme compression due to an excessive amount of telephoto (I learned that this compression of objects can be your friend when taking studio portraits: Noses and other facial features flatten out a bit) Anyway, I could not begin to fathom the fallout that eventually resulted from sharing this pic, and I am (infinitely naively) sorry that the surge of delight that I felt (and wanted to share) when I saw the pic has been soundly buried underneath a rockslide of controversy.

Ultimately, I am still inwardly grinning at this point, because the secret is out: On a certain day, in a certain place, from a landscape flat as a pancake (and about as interesting as one): Alice's looking glass has been unveiled, and our beloved Yosemite seems that much closer! (thanks Tony Immoos)

B

---

The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.

Vince, please do! Just bear in mind that the Central Valley has some of
the worst smog/air in the entire US of A. So I think your chances are
going to be not that great. Believe me, I want to see it for myself too.
I may just play hooky on a beautiful day after the next storm comes
rolling thru... The location in question can easily be seen in Google Earth
as can the Silo. (the crop circles make finding it pretty quick...)

B, I tried and I tried...
In case you didn't realize I really love "her" and try to defend all her
good and bad qualities. Obviously I get worked up
about it. (Ahwahnee...) (although I've never even stayed there)
(and, of course... I like her abundant wilderness the best)
I'd put some Muir quote here but I'm not THAT hokey...
And I get worked up when people don't agree with me since I'm
always right... um... except I still owe Mike "all the money in the world"
for some bet I was "right" about.

Peace

bill-e-g: I may just play hooky on a beautiful day after the next storm comes
rolling thru...

ROAD TRIP!!! We can all converge on the same spot and just stand there and wait for the UFO to show up (plenty of beer would certainly help)

>In case you didn't realize I really love "her" and try to defend all her
good and bad qualities<

I have my moments, too; I am ridiculously optimistic at times (seems like thats gonna be needed in the case of smog clearing for this view)

>And I get worked up when people don't agree with me since I'm
always right<

darn! There is some quote about "if a man is alone in the forest, is he still wrong" or something like that

B

If a man says something and his wife is not there to hear him, is he still wrong?

Here is the final definitive word on this picture:

It's a composite.

---

Old Dude

Mike,

Final?

We're going for 100 posts on this stupid photo are we not? What else do we do this time of year? I told my wife about this subject and she said we're just a bunch of frustrated hiking guys (sorry, Bee) that need to get out more often.

Jim

tomdisco: >We're going for 100 posts on this stupid photo are we not? What else do we do this time of year? I told my wife about this subject and she said we're just a bunch of frustrated hiking guys (sorry, Bee) that need to get out more often.<

Thats okay, Boyfriend said the same thing. In fact, I kept him up until midnight running the calculations, Google Earth, and line of sight on Topo, and when he finished (concluding that although the pic is a gross distortion of reality due to magnification, the view is mathematically plausible) he exclaimed: "I cant BELIEVE that I gave up three hours sleep on this NONSENSE -- get a life!!" (In my defense, I go to the nature preserve and run 30-60 min a day, and bike about 50mi on the weekends during the Winter)

B

Ok, he's baaaack. I tried to stay away, but I as I have changed my position after reading Gary's and KenM's most excellent posts I feel some obligation reveal my reasoning.
Summary of arguments:
1.Half Dome (presumably small and very distant) CAN be seen from somewhere near Turlock and Patterson at times.
Evidence: Google Maps line of sight argument. Several unrelated observers attest to being able to see HD from Turlock-Patterson during ideal conditions. See Dearborn's posts and other internet links referencing seeing HD from Turlock area< http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/743001/1 > http://phreatic.********.com/2008/11/little-help-for-my-friends.html

2. An optical illusion is at play.
Evidence: The illusion from the photo is that of HD looming behind a typical farm building. In fact, if you looked with unaided eys at the Silo-Elevator from the position of the photographer, the Silo-elevator would be quite small and HD would be at best a speck on the horizon (1/10 to 1/20th its size as suggested by the photo information). Ken mentioned this but I will reiterate: In that sense, the photo is misrepresentative. However, it is "misrepresentative" due to our tendency to make assumptions about scale. An optical illusion essentially driven by the assumption that we are close to the grain elevator. The Woody and Buzz example (see below) explains the illusion further.

3. Simple geometry supports the photo.
Evidence: My earlier calculations in post 3/18 assumed that the observer was 1000 feet from the elevator. If ,in fact, as one individual mentioned, the observer/photographer is 1.5 miles and HD is 90 miles away the situation is substantially different. We can use some simple geometric proportions. Assume that the grain elevator is about 125 ft high (a guess) and compared to HD, the top of the elevator projects to a point below the summit of HD. Thus, 125/1.5 miles = HD height/ 90 miles which gives a height of about 7500 ft for some point just below the top of HD. This calculation is an approximation and without adjustment for earth curvature (about 1.6 foot/ mile, if I remember correctly) and assuming that Patterson is at sea level. Add about 100 ft for Patterson elevation and 144 ft for the curvature influence gives about 7800 ft for a point on the face of Half Dome. Believable.

4. The zoom lens created both an illusion of closeness to the farm building AND magnified HD.
Evidence: The Buzz and Woody demonstration is superb. As Gary says, at distances (1-2 miles), the silo and the Sierras will both be in focus. (light waves will all be essentially parallel when they reach the camera and focus similarly), especially when a small aperture is used (pin hole effect). Magnification of the Silo to a more "life size" will simultaneously magnify the Sierras and both will be in focus.

5. The perspective is correct.
Evidence: I was puzzled by the view of El Cap and the mountains behind HD as Patterson is much lower than Yosemite. However, the great distance probably diminishes the "perspective effect" of nearer objects appearing larger and higher to the observer ( Bill-e-g picture of 10X zoom showed El Capitan appearing larger than HD but he was much closer to both) . El Cap is lower than HD and HD is certainly at lower elevation than the mountains to the east. The eastern terrain could appear higher if you get far enough away even when you are at a lower elevation like Turlock. The simulation/reconstruction of perspective by SteveC explains what COULD be seen by a zoom lens or telescope, but, due to the distance will not be seen by the unaided eye. Most of us think of Half Dome disappearing as we descend the Merced Canyon, but we are very close to the Valley on that road.

It is likely that no one is reading these posts anymore. Nevertheless, I support the validity of the photo.

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

Frank Furter wrote:

> It is likely that no one is reading these posts anymore.

Who you callin' no one?

Frankfurter: >It is likely that no one is reading these posts anymore.<

nope, your out there all by yourself. We have all been directed by Mrs. Disco to go outside and play (or at least get on with finishing the taxes instead of peeking at this window)

B

Hey, I read it too. I'm glad someone got some use out of my Buzz/Woody demo...I was beginning to wonder 8^)

I, too, agree with what Ken said...nothing deliberate, it's just not what we really see with our eyes, so thinking it's faked is a natural tendency, especially when you add it to the number of fake photos around the internet. Nothing wrong with being skeptical if something doesn't strike you as right.

Generally a 50mm lens (with 35mm film) or its equivalent is what would give us a view of a scene that looks 'normal', in that near-distant and far-distant objects would appear in correct proportion as we normally see. You can stray quite a way from that 50mm, but when you get to long telephotos or extreme wide angles, even without us realizing it things begin to look unnatural, and that's what happened here.

Add to that a bit of Photoshop brightening and adjustment of the background, and it looks even more unnatural (not at all meaning it's a bad photo, just that it immediately strikes us as "wrong"...which is why it gets more attention than a normal view).

---

Gary
Yosemite Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/roberthouse/yo

I've spent more time reading these posts than I thought I would. After leaving my post ("impossible" I didn't expect to come back.

But these posts are convincing. I now believe that I was probably wrong. But it certainly does "look" fake.

This thread has passed the El Capitan "why not take the trail" thread. Wow!

eeeek: >"why not take the trail" thread<

do we HAVE to remember it by THAT name...!!

B

Reading the Winter Storm Watch post, it looks like a cold front is coming thru which could make visibility quite good next week..

B

You read my mind.

If anyone goes to take a look, I'd be interested in seeing what the view looks like without zoom.

Sierranomad: >I'd be interested in seeing what the view looks like without zoom.<


Half Dome without zoom (Master Eeeek if you could...)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/yzavala/3307514941/in/set-72157614402790202/

B

---

The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.

dqniel wrote:


> You should read up on compression of depth of field in relation
> to focal length changes.

I think there is a good discussion at:
http://www.online-designs.co.nz/ccc/hints/persp/perspective.pdf

and your point is demonstrated by the following pics from that article:



background magnified:



I appreciate the feedback and do not claim expertise or sophistication, just trying to make the simple point that "something has to give" with a photo as features are highlighted, magnified, enhanced or brought into focus. I still don't think you can preserve ALL the features in the foreground but magnifiy the background. But I am willing to be educated.

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

Frank Furter wrote:

>
> I appreciate the feedback and do not claim expertise or
> sophistication, just trying to make the simple point that
> "something has to give" with a photo as features are
> highlighted, magnified, enhanced or brought into focus. I
> still don't think you can preserve ALL the features in the
> foreground but magnifiy the background. But I am willing to be
> educated.
>


Hyperfocal distance from using a small aperture and the smaller 4/3s sensor size of the camera makes it so much of the picture is in focus. That coupled with the ridiculous focal length creating a compressed depth of field will make the picture look quite surreal. People commonly do the same thing at the Great Sand Dunes in CO. They compose the picture from afar but use a longer focal length so as that it appears they're right on the dune that's the subject of the photo. This compresses in the mountain range in the background while still keeping the much of the subject dune in frame. The same composition of the dune could be done from right in front of the dune with a wide angle lens, but then the mountain range would appear much further away and less dramatic.

Frank Furter wrote:
> I
> still don't think you can preserve ALL the features in the
> foreground but magnifiy the background. But I am willing to be
> educated.
>

With longer lenses, there's less ability to keep a wide range of distances in focus (depth of field). With the 500mm lens, I don't know what aperture he used, but assuming f/16, he could have everything from about 1500 feet to infinity in focus, if he focused properly. Anything closer would get more and more out of focus as it got nearer to the camera. But with the silo something like 1.5 miles away, no problem with depth of field (meaning 'in focus') for both the silo and Half Dome and beyond, even if he used the lens's largest aperture, which is probably f/5.6 or so.

For close objects though, a telephoto can be critical to focus. At 20 feet and f/5.6, you'd have about an inch of depth of field with that 500mm lens.

---

Gary
Yosemite Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/roberthouse/yo

A matter of perspective (from 40.622166N, 119.4367833W)

I should quit putting myself in harm's way

Choo-choo in Gerlach (video)

> I should quit putting myself in harm's way

Me too:



And if you want more detail:

http://www.spinics.net/fs/traintrack1-200JPG.html

That's the deal about the Half Dome photo, right there on the train tracks.

Turn things around, imagine Half Dome is on the wide end closest to you, and your telescope/camera is on the other end off in the distance, with the train tracks as the camera/telescope's field of view. Of ourse Half Dome will look really big!

Vince wrote:
> That's the deal about the Half Dome photo, right there on the
> train tracks.
>
> Turn things around, imagine Half Dome is on the wide end
> closest to you, and your telescope/camera is on the other end
> off in the distance, with the train tracks as the
> camera/telescope's field of view. Of ourse Half Dome will look
> really big!

Maybe so, but it sure is hard on cameras if a train comes....

---

Gary
Yosemite Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/roberthouse/yo

Sierrafan wrote:

> Maybe so, but it sure is hard on cameras if a train comes....

It can be hard on photographers too!

Vince: >Of course Half Dome will look really big!<

Are you saying that you have jumped tracks from the hoax bandwagon and are a believer now?

B

THanks for the images of the shot w/o zoom. Intriguing.

I'm a believer. Interesting. I would have thought that w/o a doubt there would be hills between HD and Patterson...or between HD and anywhere out of Yosemite Valley, for that matter.

Thanks for bringing the subject up, B.

To say that they can "see" HD from Patterson though, is a little like saying that you can see the rings of Saturn from your backyard...sure w/ a telescope. (Unless a wide angle was used on the "non" telescope shot).

It's still very cool, though.



Post Edited (03-22-09 17:47)

From Hirschdale (Truckee), today:
Union Pacific Railroad near Donner Pass

Cya in Yosemite around April 24-26.

This photo is from today March 22 near Truckee.

OMG, I FINALLY posted a pic successfully!!!!! Thanx, Gary!!

Okay, now that we are TOTALLY off subject, this isnt gonna make much sense, now.

This photo is an example of the extreme shallow depth of field that is created by using a huge aperature and a telephoto lens to create a macro effect. Gary was talking about it above...a long time ago...oh, well, it gave me a chance to sho off once of my pets..





B

Bee wrote:

> OMG, I FINALLY posted a pic successfully!!!!! Thanx, Gary!!
>
> Okay, now that we are TOTALLY off subject, this isnt gonna make
> much sense, now.
>
> This photo is an example of the extreme shallow depth of field
> that is created by using a huge aperature and a telephoto lens
> to create a macro effect. Gary was talking about it above...a
> long time ago...oh, well, it gave me a chance to sho off once
> of my pets..

Look up the photographic term "bokeh".

YPW: >Look up the photographic term "bokeh"<

Over my head.

I swear that all I used was an old Nikon 995 set at close range focus (the little green flower) 2.8 aperature, and zoomed in. Period. I have NO CLUE how to use any of the specialized tasks in Photoshop other than Sharpen and Saturate(note the pixilation due to oversaturation) The fact that it took me months to post the darn thing tells something of my lack of skills. As far as lighting conditions go, it was filtered light in the fixed setting of an aquarium. If the photo creates another fracus (its been around for 8 years of analysis and publication with no problems), I will kindly remove it because the point of posting it was enjoyment, not more controversy

B



Post Edited (03-22-09 23:35)

---

The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.

Bee wrote:

> YPW: >Look up the photographic term "bokeh"<
>
> Over my head.

It's not that hard to understand. It's just a pleasing out of focus background or foreground. The idea is to get the viewer to concentrate on the subject that is in focus.

It has a lot to do with lenses, and equipment fanatics will discuss what kind of equipment is needed to get this right without Photoshop enhancements. I've gotten results simply because I was there without spending hundreds or thousands of dollars on expensive lenses - using a mid-range digital zoom camera.

For example, this golden-mantled ground squirrel and boardwalk are in focus while the grass blades behind it are not. The idea is that the viewer should look at the squirrel.




Or this bear that's focused while the branches in the foreground are out of focus. There are also a couple of cubs behind that can *bearly* be seen behind momma bear. You can see one of the cub's shadow. BTW - that's also a downed giant sequoia.

y_p_w wrote:

> Bee wrote:
>
> > YPW: >Look up the photographic term "bokeh"<
> >
> > Over my head.
>
> It's not that hard to understand. It's just a pleasing out of
> focus background or foreground. The idea is to get the viewer
> to concentrate on the subject that is in focus.

Actually, 'depth of field' is a better term, or in the case of describing blurry backgrounds, 'narrow or shallow depth of field'. Or 'background blur' 8^).

Depth of field refers to the near-to-far distance that is in focus, and it's mainly governed by the size of the camera's aperture, and the distance. Larger apertures give a shallower depth of field, as does being closer to the subject. Larger film or larger sensors need to have larger apertures for an equivalent f/stop, so focusing can be more critical, and you're more likely to get a blurry background or foreground.

Whether shallow depth of field is a good thing or bad thing depends. Since pros often use big cameras, it's become associated with pro photography, and so a lot of people view it as a 'plus'. However, it was not there by design, it's in fact a limitation of the media...they simply can't get the whole thing in focus all at once, they didn't purposely design cameras that way.

Ansel Adams was not a fan of blowing away backgrounds, and was active in a group called 'f64', which is a tiny aperture designed to make the whole photo in focus as much as possible. Picking a background that complements the subject without taking away from it is not easy, it's a lot easier to twist a dial and blur it out of existence. So even though the blurry background is usually thought of as 'pro' and the sharp photo is 'snapshot', in reality it takes a lot more skill to do what Ansel did. There are places for both, of course, and with a macro (close up) shot you can't help it...the depth of field is just too shallow.

"Bokeh" is, or was, an obscure term to describe the quality of the blur...a lens might have 'nice bokeh' meaning the out of focus blur it makes is pleasant or smooth to look at. Somehow it made its way to internet forums, and now it's probably the most misused word around, which is why the long post 8^). It refers to the quality, not the blur itself. "More bokeh" or "less bokeh" isn't correct, but 'pleasant bokeh' or 'ugly bokeh' etc. is.

I'm on a dialup here, and this thread took about 15 minutes to load, so I thought I'd add to the bulk...what a difference. However, being down near Mt. San Jacinto, I'm going to take my trysty ultrazoom up and see if I can get a shot of Half Dome. I'll need a clear day, since it's 315 miles away...

---

Gary
Yosemite Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/roberthouse/yo

> Depth of field refers to the near-to-far distance that is in
> focus, and it's mainly governed by the size of the camera's
> aperture, and the distance.

Not to be confused with the Scheimpflug principle

Sierrafan wrote:

> I'm on a dialup here, and this thread took about 15 minutes to
> load, so I thought I'd add to the bulk...what a difference.
> However, being down near Mt. San Jacinto, I'm going to take my
> trysty ultrazoom up and see if I can get a shot of Half Dome.
> I'll need a clear day, since it's 315 miles away...

Maybe I can get a shot of Half Dome from Grizzly Peak. Perhaps from Mount Diablo?

Sierrafan wrote:

> I'm on a dialup here, and this thread took about 15 minutes to
> load,

You should change to the treaded view. That'll give you just the subjects and new flags and should load a lot faster.

eeek wrote:

> You should change to the treaded view. That'll give you just
> the subjects and new flags and should load a lot faster.
>

Thanks, great idea!

---

Gary
Yosemite Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/roberthouse/yo

Well, too many true photographic and scientific experts on here for me to disagree, or even add my two cents. It might be a legit pic.

But as they say, "I'm from Missouri, you'll have to show me." (Okay, Illinois, but close enough.)

I, personally, think it is a great example of what Photoshop can do.

The real reason I think it is a fake picture is that of the 12 bazillion pictures taken of Half Dome, the first shot like this was taken a month ago? Are you kidding me? I guess they didn't have Photoshop when Ansel was around. Surely, he would have taken this picture before now.

Heck, it might be legitimate. But I suspect that like flying saucer pictures, this one is just a hoax. A great effort, but still a hoax.

If I'm wrong, I'm on the next train to Patterson (on a very clear day, of course)!



Post Edited (03-22-09 23:25)

---

Bill

Don't be fooled people. It's actually a telephoto shot of a Mantas Gigantas grazing on top of Half Dome taken from 62 miles away at a location in Turlock on a clear day.

---

Old Dude

Tomorrow, Monday I am taking a video camera with my telephoto lens and, if the air permits, will shoot a zoom sequence of this business from wide angle to max tele. I will attempt the shot from Montpelier Road between 5th and 6th streets or whatever.

I will have my video posted on utube if I can figure out how to get it there. I will pick out individual frames and post them on the Yosemite Pictures place if I can figure that out.

In any event all of the video and the stills will be authenticated by my friend Professor Irwin Corey, The World's Foremost Authority.



Post Edited (03-23-09 07:51)

---

Old Dude

With the clearing action of this recent storm, and the amount of folks who have planned pilgrimages to the photo spot, I am imagining that the road is gonna look something like El Cap picnic ground during FireFall (complete with the guy hocking his pix from the day before when it was clearer..)

B

>>>With the clearing action of this recent storm, and the amount of folks who have planned pilgrimages to the photo spot, I am imagining that the road is gonna look something like El Cap picnic ground during FireFall (complete with the guy hocking his pix from the day before when it was clearer..)<<<

Is the guy's name "Boyfriend"

LOL

Mike,
uh... you meant Irwin CorEy.

That's what I said. CorEy.

---

Old Dude

>That's what I said. CorEy.

Protest! Edits do not count. Obvious Hoax...

And head to the exact same spot. Hall Rd. or try getting even closer...
I want video of the silo too.

btw... thanks Gary for the Buzz Lightyear photo. pretty cool.

Send me a google sat photo of the exact spot. I don't know for sure where it is.

---

Old Dude

Mike, Google Map link is here: http://tinyurl.com/cpz2cl

It shows the camera location, as well as lines to all the peaks identified in the panorama composite picture here.

Actually Montpelier Rd. b/t 5th and 6th is fine.
You'll see the silo on the west side of Montpelier Rd. from there.

bill-e-g wrote:

> Actually Montpelier Rd. b/t 5th and 6th is fine.
> You'll see the silo on the west side of Montpelier Rd. from
> there.

On google maps "west" from this position would put the silo behind the observer looking toward HD. Do you mean West or East? If it is West, where exactly is it? SteveC map point appears to be on a corner of a field.

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

From that location on Montpelier Rd, there is an orchard obscuring the view.

Go to the camera site: From the silo, drive half mile north on Montpelier Rd, then 1.5 mile west on Keys Rd, then .6 mile south on Hall Rd.

You should see something like this (posted on Flickr by 'The Big YZ' in her "ISO Half Dome Adventure". Half Dome is between the silo and the dirt pile.


Bring back some good pictures!



Post Edited (03-23-09 10:08)

---

. . Whitney Hikers Association . . .

Frank: The camera site is 1.5 mile west of Montpelier Rd. and the silo.

If you zoom in on the Google Map, it will show you the camera site is on Hall Rd.

Maybe it wll be clear with this:

(and, yes if you are on Monpelier Rd. the silo would be behind you)
Go to Hall Rd. as SteveC said.

---

Everything I know I learned from

Well, I guess this settles it:
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

It's not settled until we say it's settled.

---

Old Dude

mrcondron wrote:

> It's not settled until we say it's settled.
>
That is too funny!!
bunch of smiley faces
It does remind me a little of the Black Knight in Monte Python and Holy Grail---- but still, pretty funny!
I think Rick will have the final word on this thread.



Post Edited (03-23-09 12:22)

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

>It's not settled until we say it's settled.

What!?!?

Are you serious?

After all the crap I put up here trying to convince people it is possible
(see the ROAD GUIDE TO YOSEMITE! for one!)
YOU are the one saying you don't believe?

Say it is not so!

(and you are suppose to be on your way down there already, no?!?!?!)



Post Edited (03-23-09 11:44)

---

Everything I know I learned from

I'm waiting until around 2pm so the sun will be somewhat behind me. It appears to be clear enough and I will have a UV filter which should help with the haze. I'll try the polarizer on the 58mm lens but I don't have one for the 82mm lens assuming it will do any good anyway. (the mm's are the dia. of the lens not the FL)

I'm even going to wear my Domke vest. This is serious stuff.



Post Edited (03-23-09 12:12)

---

Old Dude

It's times like these that I wish I didn't live on the other side of the country.

eeeeek: Not to be confused with the Scheimpflug principle

UNCLE!! Enough!! I'm buried in links and photojibe! (I'll never be able to take a spontaneous shot again!)

B

There is a cure for this insanity called June!

Jim

tomdisco wrote:

> There is a cure for this insanity called June!

June is insane? I thought she was just weird!

Bee wrote:

> UNCLE!! Enough!! I'm buried in links and photojibe! (I'll never
> be able to take a spontaneous shot again!)

Score!!!

June?

I much prefer Sierra. She is "hot" year round.

The wife and I decided my mistresses name should be Sierra...


And I got a hot date for the next 3 weekends... weather permitting...
... and I can't wait....

And where is that Vid man? Mike..??

Dale,

June is a redhead. Redheads are hot! Quirky, but hot.

This is my final post on this thread, really. It's all used up. I'm convinced; not happy with telephoto compression; just convinced.

Jim

Bill-e-g: And where is that Vid man? Mike..??


Yes, please hurry, Mike, and give us a breather from anymore examples and definitions.... (make sure the picture doesnt need any explanations!!!)

B

It was a dark and stormy night, no wait, it was a cold and windy day with clear skies all the way to and up Yosemite Valley until just after El Capitan. Half Dome was obscured by local Yosemite Valley clouds.

Tony, the guy that shot the picture in question had read my post and was at the spot on Hall Road with the same camera and lens he had used to shoot the original picture. He had been there a bit before I arrived (3:00PM) and had captured a few shots of the valley including Half Dome before I got there.

Bottom line: You can see El Cap and Half Dome from Hall Road with the unaided eye. We could see El Cap most of the three hours we were there. I was able to get lots of video of EL Cap but like I said Half Dome was obscured by clouds. Tony's picture is real. My telephoto lens came out to real close to 1100mm (35mm equivalent) and his was real close to 1100mm. The picture viewed by his camera matched the image in my video camera. El Cap was in exactly the same place as the posted picture both in relative location and in size relative to the silo.

I have not attempted to figure out how to get stuff up to utube yet.

I am going back to hall Road tomorrow around noon and will try to get better shots.

Here is a still taken with the video camera. You can see the outline of El Cap. Compare El Cap in these two shots with the original.:


This is the url for a second still taken with the video camera:
http://yosemitephotos.net/main.php/v/mrcondron/DSC00003.JPG.html

If you go here: http://www.halfdome.net/cams/ahw_movie_01.php and look at March 23rd you can see the clouds come in at just before 3pm, just at the time I was setting up my camera.



Post Edited (03-24-09 09:50)

---

Old Dude

MCondron: You can see El Cap and Half Dome from Hall Road with the unaided eye

You sure can!!!!


(I think that the farmer ought to put up a web cam on his property)

B

"I can see clearly(almost) now the rain is gone....."



Post Edited (03-23-09 23:27)

---

The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.

Ah... Sweet Victory!

Dang, I really really want to run over there today...

btw. This post has crushed any previous record.

and...

Sorry to slam ... but that yosemite blog thing is lame-o compared to this...

and Mike ... I just told your non-believer ways to Tina and she laughed at you...
(she said I was right about this but wrong about everything else)



Post Edited (03-24-09 06:44)

---

Everything I know I learned from

OK, this is going to be the end-all be-all proof that Tony's shot of Half Dome from Hall Road near Turlock is for sure real.
This photo is one of several posted here:

http://yosemitephotos.net/main.php/v/mrcondron/ Go to the last page.

It is taken with a 1100mm telephoto setup on a Sony VX2000 video camera using the still frame feature. I have actual video of the zooming process but it would have to be uploaded to utube or something and I haven't gotten to that stage in life yet. Please bear in mind that this is a standard definition video frame 720X480 pixels or maybe 620X480 pixels. Anyway it is not 10Mega pixels. It is more like 865Kilo Pixels thus the lower quality than Tony's.






It is quicker or at least it seems so to go back to Modesto via Santa Fe Road.



Post Edited (04-06-09 13:43)

---

Old Dude

Jim: This is my final post on this thread, really. It's all used up.

Time to set it up there in the pantry, next to, umm, say....the Global Warming Thread..!

B

The Intergalactic Space-Time Compression Conspiracy Consortium thanks you all for your inputs on this subject.

Hailing frequencies are now all closed.

Just how far can we push this concept? As I recall, I-5 passes along the edge of the coast range above land to the east with few trees or obstructions. Any chance of seeing Half Dome west of Patterson along I-5?

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

Frank, there is a picture of the Sierra, including Half Dome taken from Mt. Hamilton above San Jose.

It is posted here in the WPS forum: Half Dome view from Denair CA

Click on the picture to view the source web page.

SteveC and bill-e-g wrote:

> Frank, there is a picture of the Sierra, including Half Dome<


Right.
However, seeing HD at an observatory is different than seeing it from an Interstate highway (or the middle of an alfalfa field), nearly the same distance away. The credit on the photo implies that it was taken with astronomical equipment.

from F4RIO wrote:
http://home.mchsi.com/~lookoutvistas/DiabloHam.htm

the description:
"The Black and white photo above is part of a panorama taken from the Lick observatory on Mt. Hamilton in 1931. The view of the Sierras from Mt. Diablo is just about identical. The photo was taken on a glass astronomical photographic plate using an infrared filter which penetrates the haze. "

In addition, as noted, if the view from Mt Diablo is nearly the same, the mind wonders how far north one could go an still get a view of the face of HD.

The other thing, that has not been discussed is, why would the Mariposa Batallion have "discovered Yosemite Valley" if it could be seen so clearly from the Central Valley and prominent places on the Coast Range? Certainly they had at least 10X magnification available in the early 1800's.

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

The fat lady fell asleep. She may refuse to sing.

Huh, what? Next time I go to Gilroy I will check it out. ZZZZ

---

Old Dude

bill-e-g: The fat lady fell asleep. She may refuse to sing.

Now that made me laugh!! (good while working)

B

>Frank, there is a picture of the Sierra, including Half Dome taken from Mt. Hamilton above San Jose.

Yeah, that picture was actually presented in post #2!

ok, what I really wanted to say was:

>I have actual video of the zooming process but it would have to be uploaded to utube or something and I haven't gotten to that stage in life yet.

Mike, I kinda think that you are stuck in your wonder years.
I never wonder if you're going to make it. I just wonder how the
heck you can still do it and why you want to at times.

>The other thing, that has not been discussed is, why would the Mariposa Batallion have "discovered Yosemite Valley" if it could be seen so clearly from the Central Valley and prominent places on the Coast Range?

I think what you have to ask yourself is:
What did the Central Valley look like in the 1800s?

More than likely if anyone saw it anyway they surely didn't know what
the heck they were seeing. And they probably didn't really care.
Probably more concerned about getting some grub and making it thru the day.

>the mind wonders
I'm starting to not wonder so much why I'm going slightly mad...

Ok... like others... this is my last post on this baby...

Frank Furter: why would the Mariposa Batallion have "discovered Yosemite Valley" if it could be seen so clearly from the Central Valley and prominent places on the Coast Range? Certainly they had at least 10X magnification available in the early 1800's.

I cant believe Im being suckered into this conversation again...but..."The Valley" itself is NOT visible from the Central Valley -- only the landmarks, thus, it does not suggest that Shan-gri-la existed at first glance.

B

Bee wrote:

> Frank Furter: why would the Mariposa Battalion have "discovered
> Yosemite Valley" if it could be seen so clearly from the
> Central Valley and prominent places on the Coast Range?
> Certainly they had at least 10X magnification available in the
> early 1800's.
>
> I cant believe Im being suckered into this conversation
> again...but..."The Valley" itself is NOT visible from the
> Central Valley -- only the landmarks, thus, it does not suggest
> that Shan-gri-la existed at first glance.
>
> B

I have been trying to locate the original description (perhaps in a newspaper of the era), but the usual story told is that the discovery by white men of Yosemite Valley (including the monoliths) involved the Mariposa Battalion in 1851 who stumbled upon the valley completely unexpectedly while chasing indians. However, this story is called into question if those main features were plainly visible from the Valley. Wouldn't someone (white) have named Half Dome or El Cap before the time of the Mariposa Battalion? They are such unusual features it seems like there would have been curiosity about them, even from 80 miles away.

The more we know, the more there is to know.

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

Frank Furter wrote:
> The more we know, the more there is to know.
>

One thing's for sure; there's a lot better view of Half Dome, El Cap, and other landmarks from Yosemite itself. Plus you're in a heckuva lot nicer place 8^). And you don't need a particularly clear day, not to mention you can hike up to those places from there, where it would be a long walk from Patterson, if you didn't get crop-dusted along the way.

This thread reminds me of the ending of a thriller, where you think the evil guy's dead, put the gun away, and he sneaks back up to attack. Of course, there I am adding to it yet again...

---

Gary
Yosemite Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/roberthouse/yo

Sierrafan wrote:

> Frank Furter wrote:
> > The more we know, the more there is to know.
> >
>
> One thing's for sure; there's a lot better view of Half Dome,
> El Cap, and other landmarks from Yosemite itself. Plus you're
> in a heckuva lot nicer place 8^). And you don't need a
> particularly clear day, not to mention you can hike up to those
> places from there, where it would be a long walk from
> Patterson, if you didn't get crop-dusted along the way.

What if there's fog? I've seen a few photos of Half Dome is a "barely can see it" fog like we're used to the Bay Area.

I've seen freak fog conditions near home. Imagine a nice sunny day at Point Reyes (the one place I love almost as much as Yosemite) at the lighthouse where the whales are migrating and sending up mist through their blowholes. Then a wall of fog seems to be sneaking up and blanketing the area in less than five minutes to the point where there's less than 100 ft visibility.

It just get stranger and stranger:
Turns out the earliest known white visitor to Yosemite was
Joseph Rutherford Walker in 1833 who arrived from the east in the Carson River area, crossed the Sierra and descended along the north rim of Yosemite Valley.

http://www.yosemite.ca.us/library/exploration_of_the_sierra_nevada/walker.html

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

This thread is meltling away like the Wicked Witch in Wizard of Oz

More on (moron?) the history of Yosemite, person to be credited with the discovery:

Abrams Diary” (1947). Describes William Abrams’ discovery of Yosemite Valley in October 1849 by Weldon F. Heald.

http://www.yosemite.ca.us/library/abrams_diary.html

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

Once again, the Half Dome from the Central Valley monster is raising its (ugly) head...

I've just discovered this thread and have to say I've enjoyed (almost) every bit of it. I started researching this subject on August 31, 2008 after seeing a New York Times article about Kasteel Noz that mentioned being able to see Half Dome from the turret. While searching the map for the castle, I came across an interesting photo on Panoramio by someone called "Murder9."

Here are the links to those two subjects for anyone interested enough to look at them...

Kasteel Noz article (from the NY Times)

Panoramio photo (uploaded on 06/29/2007)

I started my own conversation about it at Yosemite Campers discussion (on 09/01/2008), and I have to admit that I wondered if it was real when I first saw it. To date I've found six or seven different photographers that have posted almost twenty different photos. The one that sealed the deal for me was the one made by Mike Matenkosky. Considering what he's been through and the difficulty he has getting around, to know that he made the effort to go out there and get that shot... Well, he went above and beyond. Mike, if you should ever read this comment -- thank you again, my friend.

I can't wait to get my turn at capturing the elusive mountain.

Sierra Gold,
Here is a video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFX4LR7-u6Y

---

Old Dude

Thanx, Mike. I was going to post that this morning, but had to make a Wal*Mart run first, therefore you beat me to it *heil Wal*Mart*

The main reason I posted my comments last night is because someone made a reference to how recent this all cropped up. I was just trying to show it's been going on for almost two years for me. If circumstances were different in my life, I'd have made my own pilgrimage by now.

I shot this picture today, Dec 26, 2010, from Freeway 99 in Turlock, where it crosses over Monte Vista Ave.



I posted a little write-up here: Half Dome from Turlock, CA

---

. . Whitney Hikers Association . . .

SteveC,

Members reviving this thread are to be assigned to California area mudslide clean-up.

Quote
tomdisco
SteveC,

Members reviving this thread are to be assigned to California area mudslide clean-up.

... while being forced to listen to a continuously looping recording of this song ( with "Turlock" substituted for "home" ):
http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/There's-No-Place-Like-Home-For-The-Holidays-1959-Version-lyrics-Perry-Como/A5E314FB45CB526F48256AFD000A8316



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/27/2010 08:34AM by szalkowski.

Nice shot Steve!

I know this subject has been beaten to death. But I've been following it for a while now. Here are several links that finally convinced me that it's real (the video more than anything else):

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFX4LR7-u6Y&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Half Dome to Valley: http://www.peakture.com/HDVisor.php

More Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/trimmoos/4657907576/

Of course it's real. That video on YouTube was from a regular contributor to this forum.

The only thing you need to verify it for yourself is a clear day with great visibility in the Central Valley. Unfortunately, those days are very rare. Usually thick haze, dust, smog, smoke or distant fog will block the view.
.

All individuals contributing to the rebirth of this topic will not have their Mayan calander long count renewed on 12/21.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/15/2012 10:37AM by tomdisco.