PDA

View Full Version : Marcus Allen



Ian R
2002-Apr-15, 08:50 PM
Has anyone considered contacting Marcus Allen regarding his moon hoax beliefs? He is an ardent supporter of David Percy and is (was?) editor of the "Nexus" magazine.

He reviewed "Dark Moon" on Amazon.co.uk and gave it 5 stars - the review is filled with the usual nonsense spouted by hard-core conspiracy believers. Allen appeared on the Channel 4 programme "For The Love Of..." back in 1997.

More recently, he appeared on a brief Internet TV debate about the Moon landings. I say brief because it lasted about 5 minutes, although the Bad Astronomer was also a guest.

During this short feature, Allen maintained that the Aldrin egress photos must have been falsified, because the latitude of the film was not large enough for both the lunar surface and the shaded portion of the LEM to be exposed correctly in the same picture.

Clearly, Allen believed that the lit portion of the lunar surface was exposed correctly and itís easy to understand why he believes this if one examines the JSC versions of the egress pictures. Apparently, the JSC scans are actually underexposed, perhaps creating the illusion that the lunar surface IS correctly exposed.

I think that Allen - as a major supporter of Percy - would be more willing to respond to critiques of Aulis' theories than Percy himself. Since Marcus Allen has given many lectures on this subject I think that he would be more approachable than either Bennett or Percy.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ian R on 2002-04-15 16:53 ]</font>

johnwitts
2002-Apr-15, 09:03 PM
So, go ask him here. Right away.
Is your video Long Play? Do you want some other stuff?

AstroMike
2002-Apr-15, 09:44 PM
Here's the Amazon.co.uk review of Dark Moon that Ian is talking about.

Dark Moon is a brave, timely and inevitable book., 13 April, 1999
Reviewer: Marcus Allen (nexus@ukoffice.u-net.com) from UK
When we were young we were taught to tell the truth. We should not tell lies because we will eventually get found out. Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers, is about being found out. It is a brave, timely and inevitable book. It is the book some will dread reading but one which many more will welcome: it exposes a monumental deception perpetrated on us all.

That it took the determined and meticulous research of David Percy, and the eloquent and lucid writing of Mary Bennett to produce this magnificent book is testimony to their integrity... journey which began by looking at one of the most famous photographs ever taken: man on the Moon, allegedly shot by Neil Armstrong showing 'Buzz' Aldrin on the lunar surface. Knowing the equipment used and the extreme conditions of temperature and radiation present on the Moon, scientific analysis is used to demonstrate conclusively that this picture was taken with controlled, artificial lighting. Once you know what to look for, all the Apollo pictures are suspect. With over 400 images in Dark Moon the numerous flaws and inconsistencies soon become obvious. And you start to become angry, initially with the authors-this is understandable, they are the people who have darkened the dream-then with yourself for having been hoodwinked for so long. Eventually this too passes and your energy is redirected to ensuring that never again will you allow such a travesty to occur.a responsibility to ensure that we will see what they saw.

Dark Moon, with over 500 pages, is in three parts. First is Foreground Action the 'how' of the Apollo records; interviews with the manufacturers of the cameras and films used on the Apollo project, unwittingly revealing the potential inadequacies of their equipment to operate on the Moon as billed; details, clearly explained, about the 'show stopper' of man's exploration of space-radiation...

The account of who was really behind the great rockets of both the American and Soviet space programmes is as surprising as it is comprehensive. In mid 1945 the Allies divided the spoils of war. Personnel, many originating from PeenemŁnde (birthplace of the German V-1 and V-2 rockets used against England during WW2), together with their research papers and equipment were transferred to the USA and the USSR. That these men were Nazis did not matter, they were needed for their knowledge. So began the German rocket scientists influence on both sides of the iron curtain.

There never was a real 'space race'. How could there have been when everything was carefully planned in advance? Part two of Dark Moon, Middle Distance looks at this planning, such as Project Horizon and the establishment of NASA, officially a civilian agency but financed by the US Government and acting as the public face of the Department of Defense's own extensive but secret space programme.

As the authors found during their research, there was a great deal more going on behind the scenes than had previously been thought likely: "If it is of any consolation to the reader, we too, at first, could not believe what we were uncovering as our investigation proceeded. Yet as each new stone was turned over, it revealed a conspiracy of labyrinthine proportions."

Dark Moon is not a conspiracy theory book. When the evidence is presented so clinically, with every fact double checked and confirmed, in some cases by initially sceptical specialists, then it is fact on which we can now base our decisions.

The first two sections of Dark Moon and their evidence stand in their own right. It is the third section Background Exploration which carries the story into the future, where, in the words of the authors "We come to other related subjects which some will find even harder to accept!" But persevere and you will be involved in a voyage of discovery to which our future may well be leading us anyway. It is far from the brute force of rockets and politics and winner-takes-all. It is the new world of consciousness and our place in the far greater universe in which energy is abundant, ready to be harnessed and powerful, and in which our potential as individuals and as a race can be fulfilled. That is the strength of Dark Moon, despite it being in effect two books in one: a detailed and sober account of a dream turned nightmare is balanced and complemented by a vision of the future as exciting as it is unexpected. Moreover, these two books have to exist together-they are two sides of the same coin.

If you have ever wondered about the Apollo Moon landings and whether the stories about them being somehow faked or hoaxed may be true, then Dark Moon has the answers. This book is an essential reference for anyone who has ever wondered how a conspiracy is created and how the 'knowledge' filter worksto keep it in place. Now we can move on.

The future will not only be more exciting than we can imagine, but far, far more dramatic. For showing us a part of that future, we should thank the two authors of Dark Moon.

Tomblvd
2002-Apr-15, 09:44 PM
Hey Phil, did you ever finish Dark Moon?

The last time I heard, you were waiting for a new shipment of highliters. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

What a strange, strange book.

JayUtah
2002-Apr-16, 12:18 PM
Um, in the Aldrin egress photos the lunar surface is not properly exposed. It's overexposed nearly to saturation.

JayUtah
2002-Apr-16, 05:09 PM
My comments on Allen's review.

Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers, is about being found out.

No, it's about dusting off long-debunked arguments, giving them a fresh coat of paint, and parading them in front of a new crop of potential suckers in the hopes of grabbing a little fame and fortune before the facts come crashing down again.

It is the book some will dread reading ...

I dreaded reading it, but not because I feared the implications of its conclusions. My dread derived from a foreknowledge of the mistakes, charlatanism, handwaving, and pure conjecture that awaited me, having had person conversation with one of its co-authors for a number of months prior.

...it exposes a monumental deception perpetrated on us all.

Better to say it is a monumental deception perpetuated on us all, for it promises irrefutable proof, but delivers only weak reasoning and selective evidence, pretending to support a monumental web of conjecture and predetermined conclusions.

That it took the determined and meticulous research of David Percy ...

Percy's research is neither meticulous nor determined. Most of his charges can be refuted in minutes by anyone with any suitably broad experience with the Apollo record and basic knowledge of science.

Well, I should admit that his research is determined, but not in the way Allen means. Percy is determined to find enough "wrong" with the Apollo record to sell his book, make a buck, and retire amid his accolades.

... is testimony to their integrity.

The authors' subsequent actions erode all faith in their supposed integrity. How can they, in front of a national audience, solicit rebuttals of their evidence, and then remove without comment the online materials that contained the very discussion they sought? How can they smile at the camera and say they wish their faith in Apollo could be restored, and then adopt an editorial policy which prohibits talking about the mistake in their arguments?

No, integrity should be made of sterner stuff.

Knowing the equipment used and the extreme conditions of temperature and radiation present on the Moon

We'll grant that Percy is likely competent with cameras and film, but we have found that his knowledge of the environmental conditions on the moon is mostly fantasy. The remainder is ignorance. Percy's only legitimate credential, ARPS, has nothing to do with heat transfer or radiation.

And so when the legitimate experts question his interpretation of the lunar environment -- and question they do -- he is under extra obligation to describe his understanding in detail, not make vague handwaving references to a Radiation Boogey Man.

scientific analysis is used to demonstrate conclusively that this picture was taken with controlled, artificial lighting.

There is no conclusiveness about it, for Percy has yet to provide any direct proof of the existence of the lighting he says was used. He has nothing more than a theory which explains his observations, a theory he foists off on the reader using the specious compulsory method of the false dilemma.

Further, although Percy claims to be an accomplished filmmaker and photographer, he is so far unable to reproduce any of these alleged lighting setups in his studio, and apparently unwilling even to try. That, not merely an elaborately affirmed consequent, would be conclusive.

Most of Dark Moon's science is buried in its appendices where it is sure to go unnoticed and untested by most readers. There you will find the astonishing array of assumptions that drastically affect the outcomes reported in the body of the book, and which tend to change willy-nilly as the requirements of each problem dictate.

Percy's and Bennett's conclusions stand only in their carefully selected and ideally constructed picture of the moon. They go to great lengths to establish the theoretical character of the moon as they need it to be for their analysis, sidestepping the fact that empirical evidence squashes it flat.

Once you know what to look for, all the Apollo pictures are suspect.

And henceforth the reader descends a roller-coaster of intrigue and elaborate deception, shadowy whistle-blowers who manage to ply their trade in hundreds of ways under the gaze of murderous NASA brutes.

But if the reader has a bit of critical thinking skills and a bit of real science under his belt, the hundreds of "anomalies" simply melt away.

With over 400 images in Dark Moon the numerous flaws and inconsistencies soon become obvious.

A basic rule of polemical writing is to inundate the reader with so much evidence that he won't look too closely at any one piece. When you meticulously examine the many photos in Dark Moon you realize that the authors are simply making the same few mistakes over and over again. The supposed volume of evidence for their case is in fact a volume of evidence for the authors' incompetence.

400 photos sounds like a lot, but there are 25,000 photos to choose from. And much of the refutation of the authors' claims is found in the photos they don't show. They don't show the photo of the crater Aldrin was standing in, complete with his footprints. If they did that, they'd have to admit their "scientific" estimate of its depth is just plain wrong. They don't show the photos of obscured reseau fiducials that suggest it's an optical phenomenon, only those that support their contention that the photos were cut-and-pasted together.

And you start to become angry, initially with the authors-this is understandable, they are the people who have darkened the dream

This much of the review is accurate. Bennett and Percy have darkened the dream indeed, but not on the basis of any argument worthy of that distinction. They have darkened the dream by throwing mud on it, promising but not delivering.

...then [angry] with yourself for having been hoodwinked for so long.

Partially accurate. You feel angry with yourself for having sent your $25 off to Bennett and Percy, sure in the knowledge that once your money is in their coffers they will have nothing further to do with you. You feel angry that you have a book you're embarrassed to put on your bookshelf next to volumes of legitimate science and inquiry. You feel angry that people would be so greedy as to publish such an ill-founded book and gain their fame and fortune climbing upon the backs of those who worked hard and accomplished something very great -- and meticulously documented it every step of the way.

Eventually this too passes and your energy is redirected to ensuring that never again will you allow such a travesty to occur.

Yes, you go out and outline your own book, showing all the flaws in theirs. You write scripts to television shows, showing the real scientific principles they have trampled in the mud. You write up your own web site showing how absurd their conclusions are and how fallacious are the arguments that support them.

And you vow that your kids, at least, will be brought up with some critical thinking skills that let them see charlatans like Bennett and Percy from a long way off.

interviews with the manufacturers of the cameras and films used on the Apollo project, unwittingly revealing the potential inadequacies of their equipment to operate on the Moon as billed

"Unwitting" is right. The interviewees who possess this vast expertise upon which Percy draws do not, save a few, believe in Percy's conclusions at all. With all the experience at their disposal, what has prevented them from arriving at Percy's conclusion? And getting there first, I might add?

Percy consults a mechanical engineer at Hasselblad regarding exposure, a publicist regarding photogrammetry, and an executive regarding the particulars of emulsions. People who are indeed experts, but not necessarily in the questions Percy is asking. And then he sews a patch here and a patch there into a quilt that depicts exactly what he wants depicted, and nothing else.

Jan Lundberg of Hasselblad, the designer of the EL/500 that became the lunar surface camera, tells us NASA's claim that the fiducials can be used for measuring objects in photos isn't plausible because that would require stereo pairs. In all of David Percy's "meticulous" research he seems to have missed the hundreds of stereo pairs that were taken with the Hasselblad data cameras.

details, clearly explained, about the 'show stopper' of man's exploration of space-radiation...

There are details all right, but none that Bennett and Percy can correctly interpret. They simply scare the reader with context-free numbers and technical terminology designed to give the impression of having done research, but without conveying any true understanding.

Of course the nature of the radiation in space, and especially in the Van Allen belts, is the one thing NASA cannot fake. Other countries ply the cislunar trade routes, and they have no reason to keep NASA's secrets.

That these men were Nazis did not matter

That these men were Nazis mattered a great deal, for if the Jupiter rocket designed by von Braun's team had been used as a satellite launch vehicle, the Americans would have beaten Sputnik by months. But Eisenhower was adamant that America's satellite be launched by an American rocket, not a Nazi one.

So began the German rocket scientists influence on both sides of the iron curtain.

Except that Korolev, the chief Soviet rocket designer during the heat of the space race, was not German.

...the establishment of NASA, officially a civilian agency but financed by the US Government

Since when has "civilian" precluded the possibility of funding by the federal government? Since the Department of Education is funded by the U.S. government, does that mean its teachers are not civilians?

This is where the conspiracy theory really begins to rear its ugly head and weave its tendrils into the Grand Unified Conspiracy theory that eventually claims responsibility for these outlandish arguments.

... acting as the public face of the Department of Defense's own extensive but secret space programme.

The Defense Department most assuredly had their own space program, and we have every reason to believe it may have been extensive. However, the notion that NASA was just a veneer over it completely sidesteps the long-running competition between NASA and the military for space resources. It lasted from the late 1950s up until the late 1980s and had many participants who don't mind talking about it.

The authors have reinvented science according to their whim. It is not surprising they should also reinvent history accordingly.

As the authors found during their research, there was a great deal more going on behind the scenes than had previously been thought likely

The conspiracist pattern is hard to spot. "They lied about X, certainly they could have lied about Y too." Could have, but did they? A very important question.

It is a fact of life that governments keep secrets, even from those whom they govern. Yet this should not concern us, for the necessity of keeping secrets from potential enemies precludes revealing it to the constituents.

And we are somewhat concerned, and legitimately so, that the ability to keep a secret effectively may give rise to the desire to do so when interests are not so honorable. We must restrict secrecy, but not be surprised that some is needed.

So if the government kept its Project Corona launches secret under the guise of civilian space research, we shouldn't be so surprised. If the government tested the F-117 at Groom Lake under conditions of total secrecy, we shouldn't be so surprised. But we shouldn't jump to the conclusion that all which the government appears to undertake is merely a cover story for something far more sinister. That tips the see-saw to the other fallacious extreme.

The cover of the Corona launches no more proves that Apollo was similarly falsified than a boxer's single defeat in the ring proves he must have lost all his other bouts. If it is theorized that Apollo was falsified, then it must be shown by evidence that applies to Apollo, not evidence that applies to Corona, the F-117, the Kennedy assassination, or to dead cows with missing lips.

"It was possible, therefore they must have done it," is very specious indeed.

Dark Moon is not a conspiracy theory book.

Dark Moon is the quintessential conspiracy book. It contains all the hallmarks of polemical writing: selective evidence, pretended expertise, irrelevant allusions to the mysterious, and just plan wrong facts.

When the evidence is presented so clinically, with every fact double checked and confirmed, in some cases by initially sceptical specialists...

Very few of the "facts" are even documented, much less double-checked. And when we Bennett and Percy backpedalling on some of their conclusions, such as the supposed universal high quality of the Apollo photos, we quite legitimately question the extent of their original research.

When experts whose credentials and predispositions are not in doubt laugh soundly at the conclusions, we wonder about the qualifications of the authors' experts and the relative acceptance of their findings. Clearly these were not double-checked arguments. Many were not even single-checked.

But persevere and you will be involved in a voyage of discovery to which our future may well be leading us anyway.

More irrelevant conjecture spun into a readable form by David Percy the science-fiction writer. (Yes, most hoax believers are pretty amused to discover David Percy wrote a science-fiction novel. It might explain the fertile imagination found in Dark Moon.)

If the reader is unsure by Part Three whether or not he is reading a conspiracy theory book, he will soon have all doubt removed. For herein lies the numerology, the elaborate "parallelisms", and the pure speculation that belies the fringe-belief context from which Dark Moon rises.

If you have ever wondered about the Apollo Moon landings and whether the stories about them being somehow faked or hoaxed may be true, then Dark Moon has the answers.

No, it has only the same questions that have been answered for decades, repeated ad nauseam in expensive and mind-numbing tedium.

This book is an essential reference for anyone who has ever wondered how a conspiracy is created ...

Unfortunately Percy's speculation describes a highly implausible scenario that relies on a stilted view of history in order to provide it a motivation, and wherein people are required to behave irrationally in order to make the whole thing work. It's more a manual in how not to weave a conspiracy.

and how the 'knowledge' filter works to keep it in place.

But the knolwedge filter works both ways. Percy and Bennett wish to suggest we are being blinded by our own willingness to believe in Apollo's success that we unconsciously refuse to see the contrary evidence. I submit that the reverse has happened. The authors are so intent on pursuing their conspiracy theory to its galactic conclusion that they have filtered out not only common sense but also hard-won scientific fact.

As an interesting side note, Percy claims that the BBC distributes "his" videos on a particular technique of cognitive conditioning. I was researching these in an attempt to see what Percy has done outside of the moon hoax theory, so that I could assess his expertise in imaging technology according to a more objective standard. Lo and behold, I find that the videos in question were actually produced by someone else -- the person who invented the technique -- and he claims them as his. And nowhere does he credit David Percy has a co-producer, although he credits several other co-producers and co-authors on his other materials. Has someone been padding his resume?

Further, I find that Percy bills himself as a speaker on unlocking mental potential. I have some first-hand experience in these various techniques, and although I can't comment on his precise techniques, the ones I'm familiar with operate very similarly to propaganda and brainwashing techniques used by cults.

Now before everyone flies off the handle, I'm not saying the two are equivalent. I'm saying they employ roughly similar techniques. The cognitive expansion techniques generally begin by rudely breaking down one's conceptualization of his world. The "knowledge filter" concept is introduced and then experientially the student is taught to recognize and dispose of those self-imposed filters. It is often a very traumatic process.

In the hands of legitimate cognitive counselors, this technique opens the student to possibilities precluded formerly by his own inhibitions or perceptions. The result is often a quantum leap in self-esteem and self-realization.

In the hands of cultists or propagandists, this technique erodes faith in the established order, at which point the officiator can introduce the cult's teachings with little resistance.

The bottom line is not that David Percy is onto something, but that Dark Moon is the product of a skilled propagandist, and follows the pattern without deviation.

The future will not only be more exciting than we can imagine, but far, far more dramatic.

Yes, it will. But if people like David Percy and Mary Bennett keep us wallowing in the throes of superstition, specious reasoning, and dark tales of sinister henchmen, it will take us much longer to get there than if they would simply try to acquire fame and fortune by more legitimate means.

AstroMike
2002-Apr-16, 09:05 PM
Here's Bill Wood's (a former Apollo Tracking Engineer) Amazon review of Dark Moon.

Total Garbage!, June 26, 2001
Reviewer: William O. Wood (see more about me) from Barstow, CA USA
I received a copy of "Dark Moon" directly from the authors as I gave David Percy and his assistant a tour of the Goldstone tracking facility and was interviewed on camera by David in December of 1997.

I worked at the Goldstone Manned Space Flight Network station during all Apollo missions and was an eyewitness to those events. However this book is filled with half-truths and total fabrications about the Apollo program. It will only be of interest to people who like things about "Area 51," "Crop Circles," Roswell "UFO's" and other weird "happenings."

Anyone who has even the slightest knowledge of photography and physics can see through the so-called "facts" presented in this fabrication. It should be considered a work of fiction instead of an independent view of a historic event.

Bill Wood, Retired Tracking Systems Engineer, Barstow, CA

odysseus0101
2002-Apr-16, 11:42 PM
On 2002-04-16 13:09, JayUtah wrote:
My comments on Allen's review. [...]


It always makes me happy when Jay flexes his Apollo muscles.

Conrad
2002-Apr-17, 09:08 AM
On 2002-04-16 19:42, odysseus0101 wrote:


On 2002-04-16 13:09, JayUtah wrote:
My comments on Allen's review. [...]


It always makes me happy when Jay flexes his Apollo muscles.


Yay!
Way to go Jay!
Nail that rascal to the floorboards!

Drifts off into daydream about Jay and Percy appearing, unedited, unscripted and uncencensored on a live TV debating show ...

jagster
2002-Apr-17, 12:34 PM
Conrad wrote:

...Drifts off into daydream about Jay and Percy appearing, unedited, unscripted and uncencensored on a live TV debating show ...


That would, indeed, be a beautiful sight! Unfortunately, the chance of that happening is the same as Percy actually sounding like he knows what he's talking about. The poor man would be turned into ground beef in front of the whole viewing audience, of which I would surely be one!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jagster on 2002-04-17 08:35 ]</font>

jrkeller
2002-Apr-17, 02:58 PM
Maybe we could get fox to have another celebrity boxing match with Jay and Kaysing or some other HB.

BTW, I would never pay to own a book like dark moon, but for those of you that have it, did they ever go and look at the photos in the NASA archives or did they even talk to some of the NASA photographic analysts.

JayUtah
2002-Apr-17, 04:00 PM
It's clear that open debate involving real experts is not something Bennett and Percy feel comfortable with.

I corresponded with David Percy for some time before he broke off contact. I have never spoken to him personally, but I have talked to people who have, and they say is simply so wrapped up in his theory that he pays little attention to anything else.

Percy is familiar with most of the NASA explanations for the features in the photographs. It's not clear whether he obtained this information directly from NASA photo analysis or through the grapevine. He quotes Brian Welch on a number of topics regarding the photos, but Welch gives general answers.

He told me his own analysis used contact transparencies -- 70mm "slides" made by bipack printing from the duplication masters. Clearly he contacted the photo duplication contractor in order to obtain them.

He claims to have exhaustively examined the Apollo record, but I have reason to doubt this. It is clear he misrepresents the record, and so it comes down to how you wish to interpret the omission of pertinent information: did he know about it and choose not to include it, or did he simply not know about it?

Percy's motivation to solicit the opinion of NASA photo experts presumes his goal is a fair survey of the photos. I rather believe his goal is to support the predetermined conclusion, so there's no pressing need for him to collect a spectrum of opinions.

I'm not sure whether I believe Bennett and Percy are deceptive or merely deluded. A case can be made either way. I've always followed a rule of thumb never to attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity, but the authors' evasion of honest debate leaves me with little choice.

jrkeller
2002-Apr-17, 09:40 PM
Well here's some good news about the dark moon book. I went to one of the Harris County Libraries, which includes Houston and the Johnson Space Center, today to see if I could find this book. They do not have one copy of this book throughout the entire system.

johnwitts
2002-Apr-17, 09:44 PM
Do they want mine?

jrkeller
2002-Apr-17, 09:51 PM
I just found it very interesting and refreshing that one of the largest cities in America and home of manned space flight did not carry this book.

Ian R
2002-Apr-18, 03:06 AM
John Witts: So, go ask him here. Right away.



Sure, no problem. You got his phone number? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif



Is your video Long Play?



Yep.



Do you want some other stuff?



Ooh, yes please. Anything you think will be of interest. Cheers!

Ian R
2002-Apr-18, 03:26 AM
Jay: Um, in the Aldrin egress photos the lunar surface is not properly exposed. It's overexposed nearly to saturation.



Yes, I'm already aware of that and I'm not trying to dispute your point. Anyone can look at the high-resolution scans over at the ALSJ site, and see that the saturation and brightness of the lunar surface stands out a mile.



However, the JSC versions of the egress photos do look strange in comparison. This is what you said about them a while ago: "...there are numerous problems with the [JSC] scans among which is the tendency for them to be underexposed." As a result, it is very difficult to make out detail on Aldrin's space suit and the 'hotspots' on his boots are invisible. The lunar surface is much darker (the saturation is not so apparent) and the layman may mistakenly conclude that it IS properly exposed, especially since many rocks and craters are still visible.



Therefore perhaps Marcus Allen may have got the wrong impression looking at the JSC prints or perhaps something similar. If he were to examine the high-res versions, surely there is no way that he could conclude that the surface is properly exposed.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ian R on 2002-04-17 23:33 ]</font>

Ian R
2002-Apr-18, 04:27 AM
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/20130711.jpg


Look at this particular photo (AS11-40-5869) and note the amount of detail visible on the lunar surface. I think a lot of people who have never seen the high-res version before, would look at this and say that the surface dosen't appear to be too overexposed. Of course, that is due to the underexposure of the JSC scan giving a false impression.


You have to compare this photo with other JSC Apollo 11 pictures of the same area to see the exposure difference more clearly. Examining certain pictures in isolation will quite possibly lead to mistaken conclusions.


Despite the saturation of the original photograph, quite a lot of detail in the surface seems to have survived, i.e. the film wasn't completely washed-out.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ian R on 2002-04-18 00:46 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-Apr-18, 04:47 AM
I agree with your comparison. My point is simply that Allen's assessment is factually incorrect, whether it derives from malice or from an innocently mistaken impression. The film did not simultaneously expose the lunar surface and the astronaut properly in either version.

Whether the JSC scan is dark or improperly equalized, or whether the print was pushed, dodged, or burned in the lab is not really the issue. I think cases can be made for any or all of these potential effects. I simply disagree with Allen's observation.