PDA

View Full Version : Another new Moon hoax website



ToSeek
2002-Feb-04, 08:00 PM
http://www.lunatrick.com/

I'm curious about the "non-round" Earth, though he doesn't provide a good link to the original photo so I can follow up.

Some of the others, I don't understand the problem. Most of the rest seem to be ignorance of basic photographic principles.

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Feb-04, 08:42 PM
While this website doesn't froth at the mouth like others do, it makes a lot of the same mistakes.

The only really new thing on it is the question of why the crater on the mountain appears to move between pictures. But if you look at the pictures, it's obvious the photographer moved a bit between the two images. You'll notice in the images that the lander moves with respect to the flag as well, a clear indication that the viewing angle has changed.

Other things (s)he says have been rebutted ad nauseum at other sites like http://www.clavius.org.

I do find it funny he happens to use the term HB for the believers.

AstroMike
2002-Feb-04, 09:19 PM
This person is so confused. No wonder he has done a very poor job.

Why isn't the Earth perfectly round in the photos? Simple, it isn't. The Earth's equatorial diameter is 12,756 km, while the polar diameter is 12,714 km. There is also a slight bulge (about 45 m) in Northern Hemisphere, making it slightly pear-shaped.

The rest of his arguments are thoroughly naive, so I won't address them.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AstroMike on 2002-02-04 16:30 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AstroMike on 2002-02-04 16:32 ]</font>

ToSeek
2002-Feb-04, 09:33 PM
On 2002-02-04 16:19, AstroMike wrote:
Why isn't the Earth perfectly round in the photos? Simple, it isn't. The Earth's equatorial diameter is 12,756 km, while the polar diameter is 12,714 km. There is also a slight bulge (about 45 m) in Northern Hemisphere, making it slightly pear-shaped.


I don't think that would be enough to be visible, at least not with the photos of the size he's displaying. You're talking about a 0.3% difference between polar and equatorial diameter.

AstroMike
2002-Feb-04, 09:40 PM
Yes ToSeek, but that's not what I'm talking about. He's assuming the Earth is perfectly round, which it isn't. I would like to know where he got his first photo from. He says his second photo seem to be more accurate.

ToSeek
2002-Feb-04, 09:46 PM
He says:



Is the Earth supposed to be perfectly
round or round enough you can't tell the difference with the naked eye?


which I think is reasonable. But, like you, I'd still like to know where that first photo came from.

AstroMike
2002-Feb-04, 09:58 PM
ToSeek, I have found this photo of Earth from Apollo 11

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/a11_h_36_5355.gif

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/a11_h_36_5355.gif

Try placing a circular template over it. It's virtually a circle.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AstroMike on 2002-02-04 16:59 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AstroMike on 2002-02-04 16:59 ]</font>

johnwitts
2002-Feb-04, 10:01 PM
I assume that cutting and pasting between sites is allowed if I am the origional poster? This is part of a post from http://www.apollohoax.com showing the problems with the assumptions made about the Jim and Dave Apollo 15 'Pack Shots'...

Here are the two photos in more detail...

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/as15-88-11863.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/as15-88-11863.jpg 'Dave'

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/as15-88-11866.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/as15-88-11866.jpg 'Jim'


http://www.apollohoax.com/wittspics/combinedflattercropped4layerlinessmaller.jpg

Notice how the background matches perfectly. The foreground is different, with the flag and the astronauts and the LM in seemingly different positions. This is because the two photo's were taken from different places and at different distances. I had to rotate one of the images to get the match, so therefore I conclude that the camera was being held at an angle. If you look at the two seperate images, it looks as though Jim is leaning one way and Dave the other way. In the combined image, they are both standing upright. Notice also the angle of the LM. This suggests that the photographer was downslope when the photos were taken.

Here's a link to a larger version, to show how well the backgrounds match up.
http://www.apollohoax.com/wittspics/combinedflattercropped4layerlines.jpg

More...

Much has also been made of the famous 'Pack Shot' which is the photo of Jim above. Apparently it's too perfect. However, looking over the picture above, I found a strange thing. Apparently the photo of Jim was taken using Jims camera. Dave borrowed it to take 3 shots. He deliberately tried to get a good view of the LM, Rover and Jim with the flag. Here are the images, from ALSJ...

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/10100247.jpg
Bit dark, not very good of the Rover.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/10100248.jpg
A bit better, Rover a bit out of shot.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/10100249.jpg
Best yet. I think that might do the trick.

So it would seem that the perfect 'Pack Shot' was no accident. It seems that Dave saw an opportunity to get a great photo of man on the Moon, took three shots just to make sure he got it, then gave the camera back.

ToSeek
2002-Feb-04, 10:09 PM
Oh, yes. I mean, there's something visibly wrong with the photo he's using - I don't need to superimpose a circle to tell that the Earth is squashed in that photo. But I don't understand why and can't without checking the original. (Frankly, the photo doesn't even look like an Apollo-era one. It looks more like one Galileo might have taken.)

AstroMike
2002-Feb-04, 10:20 PM
Here's another one from Apollo 16.

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/a16_h_118_18885.gif

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/a16_h_118_18885.gif

It's practially a circle too.

johnwitts
2002-Feb-04, 10:26 PM
We have to remember here that these Earth photos were taken through the spacecraft windows, which could easily have distorted these images.

ToSeek
2002-Feb-04, 10:47 PM
On 2002-02-04 17:26, johnwitts wrote:
We have to remember here that these Earth photos were taken through the spacecraft windows, which could easily have distorted these images.


That's a good point. I was noticing that the Earth image on the site seemed to be fairly low resolution - if it was taken from near the Moon, through the spacecraft windows, it could very easily have been distorted, much more so than the pretty pictures AM keeps finding.

AstroMike
2002-Feb-04, 10:57 PM
In case you're wondering ToSeek, his second photo is from Apollo 10.

http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/images/pao/AS10/10075142.jpg

http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/images/pao/AS10/10075142.jpg

This photo has a much lower resolution than the ones I previously posted.

The Curtmudgeon
2002-Feb-04, 11:28 PM
The number, 20123799, which he put under the "egg-shaped" Earth pic on that site, isn't a link like some of the other pic captions. Is there a site where one can search Apollo/NASA pics by reference number? I'm wondering if this isn't somebody's doctored version, rather than a real pic.

The (what me, suspicious?) Curtmudgeon

CraigZ
2002-Feb-05, 08:53 AM
Notice how the background matches perfectly. The foreground is different, with the flag and the astronauts and the LM in seemingly different positions. This is because the two photo's were taken from different places and at different distances. I had to rotate one of the images to get the match, so therefore I conclude that the camera was being held at an angle. If you look at the two seperate images, it looks as though Jim is leaning one way and Dave the other way. In the combined image, they are both standing upright. Notice also the angle of the LM. This suggests that the photographer was downslope when the photos were taken.


I'm the nutcase with the website..
here's the not-so-round earth link.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/20123799.jpg

With all due respect, I have a small disagreement about your 11863 and 11866 photo analysis, Johyn Witts. Someone dropped 11866 7-8 degrees and raised 11863 7-8 degrees, of course they're gonna match. Irwin (11866) should be tilted more than what he is. Its really no big deal if they did cut 'n paste the mountain and/or the astronauts just to straigten them out, it's just I can't get anyone pro-NASA to say so. Must be a pandora's box thing.

As for http://www.clavius.org they don't mention most of the photos (if any) I have. And whoever posted that should've known before they posted.

As for those "it's so easily refuted, it's not worth responding to." posters, I get that alot. They won't respond to my questions but will go into great detail about why no blast crater or something as easy to refute. So the reason they probably don't respond is they don't know. I insinuate, but I obviously don't know. Why can't those who do know, tell those who don't? And those who do have questions, try not to be shamed into silence. I got over 330 visits inside 8 days without my site being in any search engines. Which isn't much but I'm guessing there has to be at least a few wanting to ask some questions.
Ask up, if you want.

thanks,
CraigZ

ToSeek
2002-Feb-05, 01:22 PM
On 2002-02-05 03:53, CraigZ wrote:
As for those "it's so easily refuted, it's not worth responding to." posters, I get that alot.


My first choice for "easily refuted" would be the issues with the varying brightness in the photographs. The fact is that the brightness in a photo depends not only on the external brightness but on how open the shutter is, the length of the exposure, and the sensitivity of the film. You can overexpose a photo of a black cat at midnight if you leave the shutter open long enough, and you can take direct photos of the Sun with a fast enough shutter. Doing straight comparisons of two photographs is totally meaningless without knowing the details.

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Feb-05, 02:06 PM
On 2002-02-05 03:53, CraigZ wrote:
As for those "it's so easily refuted, it's not worth responding to." posters, I get that alot. They won't respond to my questions but will go into great detail about why no blast crater or something as easy to refute. So the reason they probably don't respond is they don't know. I insinuate, but I obviously don't know. Why can't those who do know, tell those who don't? And those who do have questions, try not to be shamed into silence. I got over 330 visits inside 8 days without my site being in any search engines. Which isn't much but I'm guessing there has to be at least a few wanting to ask some questions.
Ask up, if you want.
This thread alone has over a hundred views, so that will account for some visits. Welcome to the BABB.

I do have some questions:
1) Have you ever taken photographs and developed and printed them yourself?
2) What is your math background?
3) What is your level of education?
4) What is your age?
5) What is your profession?

If you don't feel like discussing any of this in a forum, feel free to tell me so by email (http://mailto:mentock@mindspring.com).

JayUtah
2002-Feb-05, 04:24 PM
I'm the nutcase with the website..

Greetings. I'm the webmaster of Clavius.org.

here's the not-so-round earth link.

Okay, now prove it's squashed in the original negative, not in the hasty scan posted on ALSJ.

I've found a number of spatially distorted photos on ALSJ, but only in the photos which have only numbers as their file names, not in those which have their NASA catalogue numbers for file names.

So I did the unthinkable. I sent an e-mail to Kipp Teague, the photo curator of ALSJ, and asked what was up. The answer is quite satisfactory. The inferior photos were scanned by an automated process in the 1980s. How else would you scan 20,000 photographs? It involved loading a second-generation master onto a fairly primitive negative drive scanner modified to accommodate 70mm longrolls.

This type of scanner is made for speed, not quality. And if you examine the photogrammetric fiducials in the scanned photos, you'll notice a tendency to compress the image in the roll-longitudinal direction -- the vertical axis in the photographs. This also corresponds to the direction of the scan head motion.

The "numbered" ALSJ photos are known by researchers not to be spatially faithful. That's why real research is done from contact copies of the transparencies, or photogrammetrically controlled prints.

Further, your Photo 7 is not evidence of an egg-shaped appearance to the earth in Apollo photographs. The falloff in intensity of illumination on the cloud cover at the 4 o'clock position on the disk should have been a clue that you're looking at the terminator, not the disk boundary.

Someone dropped 11866 7-8 degrees and raised 11863 7-8 degrees, of course they're gonna match. Irwin (11866) should be tilted more than what he is.

But that's the point. You're using the astronaut as your estimate of "up". John is pointing out that the backgrounds do in fact match if you consider the mountain top orientation in connection with the LM orientation and the flagpole orientation. John is not using the image boundaries as a reference as most hoax believers inexplicably do.

... it's just I can't get anyone pro-NASA to say so. Must be a pandora's box thing.

Not at all. First of all, I am not "pro-NASA". I merely believe the evidence against the Apollo moon landings is incredibly ignorant.

Second, nobody should have to "admit" to some hypothetical process of falsification when it's clear to anyone with actual photographic experience what is going on. You seem to want the NASA crowd to meet you halfway, and you promise you won't gloat. I can't do that if I find all your evidence faulty.

As for http://www.clavius.org they don't mention most of the photos (if any) I have. And whoever posted that should've known before they posted.

Whoever posted that noted that many of your "other arguments" are covered at Clavius, not necessarily your photographs. You speak at length on the whys and werefores of the hoax theory. So do we.

They won't respond to my questions

Very well. See below.

Ask up, if you want.

I too would like to know your level and focus of education.

I too would like to know if you have any photographic experience involving manual exposure and hand developing. Have you ever retouched or modified a photo using only mechanical or chemical techniques?

Your assertions:

Opening paragraph. I do not vehemently defend NASA. I defend the historical authenticity of the Apollo landings. I do not claim no photo was faked. I claim that the evidence I have been shown in the attempt to prove that various photos are fake, is the most absurd evidence I've ever been shown.

Regarding hoax believers being of sub-par intelligence, I can't vouch for that. But having been professionally trained as an engineer and having apprenticed as a photographer prior to that, I can say that the hoax believers exhibit almost total ignorance of these and other applicable fields. I don't claim they're dumb; I claim they're either underinformed or misinformed.

Photos 1-4. John Witts has provided a satisfactory explanation. Everything in those photos can be explained in terms of camera location and orientation. Further, your hypothesis does not answer parallax observations in what you claim to be a backdrop.

Photos 5-6. Taken from scans known to be variously spatially distorted by the scanning process.

Photo 7. Answered above. You apparently do not know what earth's terminator looks like.

Photos 8-9. Of course a smudge on a photograph is not proof. But it is, however, something that hoax believers must explain. Had you obtained and read the paper in which this photograph was presented, you would have learned that it is not a visible-spectrum photograph. It is, in fact, a collection of registered images taken in various wavelengths and processed digitally. This is how most "photographs" taken with remote sensing spacecraft are produced.

Photo 8 is a visible spectrum photograph.

You're right: you are not a scientist. But you seem to be very liberal with your assertions that something is "absolutely ridiculous" before you have fully investigated it.

Photos 10-12. You seem completely oblivious to the effects of exposure and scattering. Your assertion that the sun disk should appear identical in size and intensity in all the photos exposes (pun intended) your inexperience in photography.

Had you done a thorough survey of the ALSJ photos and read the accompanying text, you would have understood the scattering effect produced by a coat of fine lunar dust on the lens. You would have seen other evidence of this phenomenon in a number of other photos.

And if you knew anything about optics you would know that even a perfectly clean lens will scatter light.

(By the way: Please use the NASA catalogue numbers, e.g., AS15-84-11348, instead of ALSJ file names. Those have meaning only in the ALSJ while the photo IDs are a universal reference. Those of us who may wish to consult other photo sources can't use the ALSJ file name to do so.)

Photo 13. Lies near the end of roll 84/MM and therefore is susceptible to sunstrike. The vertical patch of overexposure just left of center confirms sunstrike. The anomaly in question is thus likely to be post-exposure light contamination that occurred as the magazine was removed from the camera body.

If you measure the fiducials in this photo, you will find it is evidence for my assertion above that the photos in the "number" series are frequently squashed vertically.

Photo 13b. Your assumption that the patch of light in the picture is the sun is naive. The lunar module windows are angled downward. This means that from the pilot's standing point of view the window would tend to reflect objects on the LM's ceiling. Above the pilot's head is a rectangular docking window. The shading on the command module in the photo indicates the sun is roughly above the LM. The light scattering effect of condensate and chemicals outgassing from the window seals is well documented and evident in most photographs of the spacecraft interior. You are seeing the reflection of scattered sunlight through the docking window, reflected on the main window through which the photograph was taken.

Photo 14. No reference is given and the photo is of poor quality. Please provide either the NASA photo ID or a clearer photo.

Photo 15. Taken nearly up-sun. What you assume is reflected light on the lunar surface are "rays" scattered by the camera lens.

Photo 16-17. Your hypothesis is that the edge darkening is a byproduct of having airbrushed out the original background to replace it with a black sky.

You correctly note that it happens only on black and white photographs, which is more than most hoax believers manage. However, your hypothesis doesn't really explain it.

Consider the following flaws in your observation.

1. Are you aware that the color film was reversal while the black and white film was negative? Do you know the difference in how each would have to be processed in order to get the image you're looking at?

2. You ignore the fact that other edge boundaries, not just terrain-sky boundaries, also exhibit edge darkening.

3. You ignore the fact that it does not appear in adjacent photos on the roll, photos apparently snapped only seconds apart.

Consider the following misconceptions regarding airbrushes:

1. An airbrush would indeed leave such an indistinct edge -- but only in the hands of a complete novice. Even beginning airbrush artists are taught the principles of masking. In fact, it's a fundamental skill to the medium. Your hypothesis does not present a plausible use of an airbrush.

2. Airbrushes are not the only tools that can be used to mechanically alter photos. Airbrushes are used only when smooth gradients are needed. To obtain high opacity or sharp lines, regular bristle brushes are commonly used. Your hypothesis does not present a plausible method of photo retouching.

3. Removing an original earth sky and replacing it with black is best done with razor techniques. It would be very labor-intensive to paint it uniform black when could be done much more quickly and easily done by razoring out the sky on a negative and printing from that. You get the uniform black background for free. Your hypothesis does not present a plausible method for this type of photo retouching.

You seem unconcerned that all the evidence points to insufficient agitation during the positive baths that would only affect black and white film (since the color film didn't require that process), only affect it in spots, and produce just such a "dodge" effect.

Photo 18-19. If the photographs were taken in broad daylight, how does your hypothesis explain the stark shadows?

Photo 20-21. You say you haven't been able find any evidence of a second flag. It took me 18 seconds to find this:


Cernan - "The flag that we took to deploy was the one that had hung on the wall of the Mission Control Center during all the landing missions. And we also had another flag, which we brought back to replace the one that we deployed at Taurus-Littrow." See NASA photo
S73-38346 which shows Gene and Jack persenting the replacement flag to Gene Kranz in the MOCR in December 1973.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/a17.alsepoff.html

Maybe people don't answer your questions because it's obvious you aren't looking very hard yourself for the answers.

Bright surface photos. Do you understand photo exposure? Do you understand exposure latitude in reversal film? It has nothing to do with "NBs" admitting that "HBs" were "right all along." You seem to have no clue how photography works.

Returning to the moon. Clavius deals with this at length. A point not mentioned there is how badly Apollo 13 had scared everyone -- they decided to quit at 17 because of that. Nowadays there is no social mandate to go, so we don't go. It's not NASA's decision. It's the decision of the U.S. public.

NASA's viability. NASA did in fact suffer through numerous failures in the early 1960s. Your hypothesis is historically inaccurate.

Distraction from Vietnam. Again, historically inaccurate. The same people who were protesting Vietnam were also protesting the moon landings. And "Tricky Dicky" had almost nothing to do with Apollo except to slash its budget and accept all the accolades for the Johnson administration's work.

The whistle-blower theory. It's not a rumor going around the Internet but rather the subject of a 500-page book by David Percy. Releasing photos on the Internet is irrelevant. The photos have been available on the Internet since the mid 1980s, and in print and transparency form since the mid-1970s. They have always been in the hands of expert photo analysts and qualified researchers from all over the world.

Making them available on the Internet simply makes it easier for uninformed, uneducated, inexperienced people to download them from the comfort of their living rooms and make up wild stories about them.

I concur with the opinions given already. Your site certainly doesn't "foam at the mouth" like other sites, but it is nevertheless based on assumption you've made in the absence of experience, knowledge, and careful research. You're jumping repeatedly to hoax-based conclusions to explain what you believe are anomalies. Yet you seem not to want to be considered a hoax believer.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-02-05 11:29 ]</font>

SpacedOut
2002-Feb-05, 04:31 PM
I’m sorry but I have a hard time accepting the expertise of someone trying to analyze photos when the person doesn’t even have a basic understanding of parallax! As for http://www.clavius.org, while the site may not specifically use CraigZ’s photos, the site goes to great lengths to explain the basics of photography and how you must have a very good understanding of the subject before you can do in depth analyses of photographs. I suggest that CraigZ spend a few hours visiting the site as a start of his education

I regret that I too have contributed to the site’s hit count – I forgot that the more hits one of these HB sites get, the more the author feels vindicated.

JayUtah - You took care of this while I was writting it. I should have checked the BB prior to formally posting.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SpacedOut on 2002-02-05 13:48 ]</font>

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Feb-05, 06:13 PM
On 2002-02-05 03:53, CraigZ wrote:

As for http://www.clavius.org they don't mention most of the photos (if any) I have. And whoever posted that should've known before they posted.



Um. "Whoever posted that"? That was me, the webmaster of this site to which you are writing. And it does indeed cover in detail a lot of your claims, which is what I said. Reread what I wrote.



As for those "it's so easily refuted, it's not worth responding to." posters, I get that alot. They won't respond to my questions but will go into great detail about why no blast crater or something as easy to refute.


I'm curious: have you read my Moon hoax page, or the Clavius site thoroughly? As I said in my post above, most of your claims on your page have been shown to be incorrect. I have a big list of hoax sites, both pro and con, linked from the bottom of my hoax page as well.

And I'll say it again: JayUtah is my hero. Nice work on the flattened Earth picture!

AstroMike
2002-Feb-05, 06:57 PM
Bad Astronomer: And I'll say it again: JayUtah is my hero. Nice work on the flattened Earth picture!

Yep. I couldn't figure out that flattened Earth picture.

johnwitts
2002-Feb-05, 11:18 PM
CraigZ says...

With all due respect, I have a small disagreement about your 11863 and 11866 photo analysis, Johyn Witts. Someone dropped 11866 7-8 degrees and raised 11863 7-8 degrees, of course they're gonna match.

That someone would be me. And 'of course they're gonna match' because all I did was take out the effects of the tilt of the camera when the photos were taken. The whole argument was that the backgrounds didn't match. If I'd matched up the backgrounds at the LM angles didn't match up, there would be something in what you are saying. Unfortunately, the LM angles are the same.

Irwin (11866) should be tilted more than what he is. Its really no big deal if they did cut 'n paste the mountain and/or the astronauts just to straigten them out, it's just I can't get anyone pro-NASA to say so. Must be a pandora's box thing.

If I'd matched up the background only to find that the astronauts were then leaning over at funny angles, there would be something in what you say. Unfortunately, the astronauts are brought back to standing upright in the combined image. Look at the yellow 'uprights' I've provided. Look at the linked hi res version. Both astronauts are standing vertically in the combined image. They seem to be leaning in the single origional images. HB's always harp on about how difficult it would have been to frame a shot like this with no viewfinder, big gloves, helmet etc, yet when we find a photo which seems to have been taken all wonky, they then find a reason to use this as evidence of a hoax, because the background angles are slanted. These two photos were taken by different astronauts. They may have had different ways of holding the camera. They may have used different hands. My point is that you cannot argue that the photos were too good, then argue that they were not good enough.

Irwin (11866) should be tilted more than what he is.

Based on what? He looks upright to me, in the combined image. He's not exactly falling over. If I find anything that doesn't look right, or I can't explain. I'll look it up in a book, or post it here or elsewhere and ask 'Why's that then..?'. I don't automatically assume that something I don't understand necessarily means I can't understand it. I just ask. And I usually get a consistent answer. By consistent, I mean an answer which also fits in with everything else I've learnt. I don't automatically assume Moon Monkeys or hoaxes. I'd rather accept that the astronauts had trouble keeping the cameras level than someone forgot to move the scenary right, especially as we know that the two photos came from the same camera suggesting it was hand held for at least some of the shots and not clipped to the astronauts chest. Do what I did. Get both photos into Paint Shop Pro and line them up. Fade between the two and you'll see just how exactly the backgrounds line up. This suggests the mountains were some distance away, not close up, as the LM and flag are different sizes, showing that the photos were taken from different places. If the background was a near-by cardboard model, it's size would also change and it doesn't. Anything else?

[spelling again!]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: johnwitts on 2002-02-05 18:23 ]</font>

CraigZ
2002-Feb-06, 06:20 AM
Cernan - "The flag that we took to deploy was the one that had hung on the wall of the Mission Control Center during all the landing missions. And we also had another flag, which we brought back to replace the one that we deployed at Taurus-Littrow." See NASA photo
S73-38346 which shows Gene and Jack persenting the replacement flag to Gene Kranz in the MOCR in December 1973.

That was ridiculously bad on my part, I took that down. I looked for that for hours, reading ASLJ backwards from post EVA 3 (to see why they left it behind) toward the beginning and tried to find info from ksc and jsc sites. Should've read the beginning. Those guys (NASA) would have to be brain dead to have done that.

I'm having computer problems now,
I hope to ask you more questions when I'm up and running.

thanks,
CraigZ

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Feb-06, 09:32 AM
On 2002-02-06 01:20, CraigZ wrote:
Those guys (NASA) would have to be brain dead to have done that.
All right, Craig!

I think we can extrapolate this.

JayUtah
2002-Feb-06, 03:32 PM
And I'll say it again: JayUtah is my hero.

And Kipp is mine.

Nice work on the flattened Earth picture!

Quite easy, actually. And I don't mean that egotistically. You don't need advanced education to solve 90% of the photo analysis issues. It requires only good observational skills and some curiosity.

The JSC scans are terrific. Don't get me wrong on that. I think that if someone 30 years ago were told that anyone in the world would one day be able, with little or no expense, to obtain a collection of every photo taken on the Apollo missions, it would have floored him. But a good researcher simply must understand and respect the limitations of his sources. The JSC scanning project was an exercise in "breadth" and not "depth". One day they will no doubt be superseded by better scans.

The reseau grid (the little crosshairs) is included on the LEVA photos precisely for the purpose of detecting image distortion after duplication. That's a necessary first step to photogrammetry, which is why so many stereo pairs were taken. Unfortunately only the surface cameras were fitted with reseau plates, so most of the en route pictures and lunar orbit pictures don't have the reseau grid.

Ironically, Craig includes on his site one of the few photos taken in lunar orbit with the surface camera. These are important and rare because the resolution of the JSC scans doesn't generally let you see the fiducials. But if you take a picture of the moon from orbit, you have a big patch of white. You need to see at least four adjacent fiducials to assess distortion. In short, Craig's photo is one of the conclusive proof photos of the distortion in the JSC scans.

I discovered the distortion not by using the fiducials but by doing some image processing between JSC frames and scans of the same photos taken from prints. I had intended to establish a baseline color correction model for the JSC frames, but I was annoyed at how badly the frames registered spatially. I finally found a few LEVA photos from the JSC collection that had fiducials I could use to confirm which version was correct. The JSC frames are, in some cases, squashed 15% in the vertical direction.

Anyone can tell that the JSC scans are of poor quality. But you have to take that extra step and find out why they are so poor.

The bottom line is that it takes so very little inquiry to find answers to these question. I spent about half an hour making observations, and I had a response back from Kipp in 24 hours. I strongly believe that the people who are so "confused" about Apollo photos simply aren't taking the time to do research. They already know what they want to believe.

And I believe the professional moon hoax theorists like David Percy are simply lying when they claim they've done meticulous and exhaustive research. Percy claims he spent five years or some such inordinately lengthy period researching his book. John Witts can attest to how easy it is to find refutory evidence. It took us exactly half an hour to refute Percy's jump-salute claim. And his claim that all the photos are of studio quality is prima facie evidence that he hasn't looked at very many of them.

These people must know they're wrong. You can't do the research they've claimed to do and make the statements they make.

AstroMike
2002-Feb-06, 05:31 PM
JayUtah: And I believe the professional moon hoax theorists like David Percy are simply lying when they claim they've done meticulous and exhaustive research.

Agreed. And frankly, if David Percy is an accomplished photographer, he would have known something simple as emulsion bleed in the crosshairs.

JayUtah
2002-Feb-06, 09:44 PM
... if David Percy is an accomplished photographer, he would have known something simple as emulsion bleed in the crosshairs.

A very good example. For each photo he presents that looks like the fiducial might have been obscured by a foreground object, I can present ten or fifteen which show it's not correlated to object boundaries but in fact to highlights. Further, I can look at high-resolution versions of his photos and see that the fiducial is only partially obscured.

If Percy found his proof photos by examining a reasonably complete collection, then he would have not been able to avoid seeing the photos which disproved his theories. So either he's lying about what he found, or he's lying about having made a thorough examination.

Percy can sue me all he wants. It's my belief that David Percy is knowingly withholding contrary evidence and selectively presenting other evidence, with the intent of deceiving the public into buying his book and video.

johnwitts
2002-Feb-06, 10:16 PM
Jay wrote...

John Witts can attest to how easy it is to find refutory evidence. It took us exactly half an hour to refute Percy's jump-salute claim.

That includes the time it took to start the computer, connect to the internet (dial-up in the UK), type the post, add some photos and check for spellings. The flap in question is actuially visible in his own video production. He's not even watched his own film. That's how meticulously he has researched his claims. It took me about five minutes to realise Percy was pulling everyones chains, and making the whole thing up for the money. It took Jay a good while longer, be he's probably more trusting than I am.

AstroMike
2002-Feb-06, 10:26 PM
Here's a photograph of the Eagle Moon plaque.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/as11-40-5899.jpg

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/as11-40-5899.jpg

Notice how the crosshairs bleed against the bright lit lunar surface.

johnwitts
2002-Feb-06, 10:36 PM
Even the 'classic' shows this effect. It's used in Percy's Book and Video. They use the centre cross hair to show the picture isn't central and to show that Neil's standing on a table (or something). But this central crosshair is visible on Buzz's knee, but dissapears into the lunar surface behind him. Some cut and paste job!

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/as11-40-5903.jpg

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/as11-40-5903.jpg

Look at the central cross hair. Percy has analysed this photo to death, yet failed to notice the bleeding on the central cross hair. Some researcher.

[Spelling!!!!!!!]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: johnwitts on 2002-02-06 17:37 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-Feb-06, 11:22 PM
It took Jay a good while longer, be he's probably more trusting than I am.

No, just more thorough. I saw the supposedly missing flap the very first time I saw the video. I wanted to go the second mile and show exactly what the flap was, so I scoured the photo set and examined every Apollo PLSS within a 600-mile radius of where I live.

JayUtah
2002-Feb-06, 11:40 PM
Notice how the crosshairs bleed against the bright lit lunar surface.

Absolutely. Michael Light's Full Moon is full of high quality prints in which the fiducials are partly obscured.

White objects tend to obscure the fiducials. The lunar surface will too, if overexposed. Highlights on silver objects almost always obscure the fiducials. Since silver reflects light more directly than white, it's clearly a function of how much light strikes the film.

Not only that, fiducials near the edge tend to bleed out more than center fiducials. That means film base halation is also an issue. For a while Kodak was even interested in what I had learned about this, but they've satisfied their curiosity. (Apparently it was a known problem with the Estar base as manufactured then.)

So what are we supposed to do with Percy? He cuts a dashing figure on television. He smiles pleasantly and tells the world that gosh he'd really like to believe in the Apollo moon landings, but he just can't anymore. What an act!

AstroMike
2002-Feb-07, 12:01 AM
I would really like to believe David Percy, but I can't. His photographic "evidence" is simply wrong. And if he says he is a professional photographer, I think he's making up faulty arguments on purpose.

_________________
"The contemplation of celestial things will make man both speak and think more sublimely and magnificently when he descends to human affairs." -Marcus Cicero

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AstroMike on 2002-02-06 19:05 ]</font>

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Feb-07, 02:51 AM
On 2002-02-06 18:40, JayUtah wrote:
That means film base halation is also an issue.

Can you explain that in more detail please? I'm curious.

JayUtah
2002-Feb-07, 03:31 AM
Photographic film is an emulsion of light sensitive chemicals spread over a transparent base of celluloid or plastic. The Estar base is a Kodak base commonly used in aerial photography because it is very thin and can be rolled up into spools to save space in photo pods.

Halation is the phenomenon whereby the optical properties of the base -- chiefly scattering, refraction, and internal reflection -- intrudes upon the imaging by the emulsion. The base acts like a rectangular prism. If the light strikes the film perpendicular to its surface, only scattering is an issue. If it strikes it at a more oblique angle -- as it would near the edges of the film plane -- the light rays refract and reflect off the back of the base, striking the back of the emulsion and "bleeding" a bright image.

Film formulations have historically employed antihalation coatings, but these have adverse effects on the image quality. It has been considered better to devise bases with physical properties that reduce halation. I do not believe the Estar base uses a separate antihalation layer. Since the Ektachrome emulsion is a reversal emulsion, it does not darken when light strikes it. The opacity of negative emulsions when exposed helps reduce halation in the entire film system -- once the emulsion is fully dark (i.e., saturated) no more light passes through it.

I believe Kodak does not habitually use the Ektachrome emulsion and the Estar base and so did not anticipate the halation problems. And it must be stressed that the halation is very minimal. The image, in general, is not affected. But the fiducials are only 0.02 mm thick and are very easily obscured.

The issue of halation is important in the hoax theory because it supports the already well-established contention that the obscuration of fiducials is caused by photographic exposure.

JayUtah
2002-Feb-07, 04:04 AM
His photographic "evidence" is simply wrong. And if he says he is a professional photographer, I think he's making up faulty arguments on purpose.

Clearly. David Percy claims to be a photographer, and I have no real reason to doubt him. But I haven't seen any photos he's taken -- and I've looked -- except those he has presented to support moon hoax arguments. He claims to be an award-winning filmmaker, but the only award I've been able to confirm is a yearly award given by an organization of makers of industrial films. He seems to make most, if not all, his living on the moon hoax stuff.

He might be a photographer, but so far he seems to know very little about field of view, perspective, lighting, shadow, geometry, or exposure. In the field of photography, what's left?

I've shown his evidence to people who I know are good photographers and lighting designers. I know what their skills and qualifications are. They think Percy is a loon.

So what am I to conclude? I suppose someone can be an "instinctive" photographer with no real knowledge of the technical aspects. But that's not what Percy claims to be. He discusses photos from a technical perspective. If he wants to be a shoot-from-the-hip photographer, he can't pretend to be a photo analyst.

Either David Percy isn't the kind of photographer who has the skills necessary for photo analysis, or he has the skills and uses the cloak of expertise to deliberately mislead and deceive his readers for his own profit.

odysseus0101
2002-Feb-07, 05:07 AM
On 2002-02-06 23:04, JayUtah wrote:
His photographic "evidence" is simply wrong. And if he says he is a professional photographer, I think he's making up faulty arguments on purpose.


Lately I've cruised around the web and read some stuff on Percy, but I am wondering if any of you have ever spoken with him? I'd just really like to get a sense of this guy, who is so obviously wrong and most likely an outright scam-artist.

JayUtah
2002-Feb-07, 05:25 AM
I am wondering if any of you have ever spoken with him?

I had a brief e-mail conversation with him. I asked him some detailed questions about his arguments, how he had examined certain photos, what his science background was. After I revealed that I was a professional engineer and disagreed with his findings, he stopped responding to my e-mails.

His web site can be found at http://www.aulis.com. It used to feature an unmoderated interactive forum. After several of Percy's main arguments had been thoroughly refuted on the forum, the forum was abruptly removed and all traces of refutory arguments were erased. There is a sort of guestbook where you can leave messages, but it is very difficult to get anything refutory or even argumentative posted there. It is heavily moderated. Apparently it's intended more as a shrine to ignorance than as a serious discussion forum.

Peter B
2002-Feb-07, 05:37 AM
To get back to discussing the original site listed at the start of the thread, I had a quick look at it as well.

I note with interest the theory that the missions took place but all the photography was messed up, so they had to fake it back here on Earth. We then read that such a theory would upset everyone, cos the HBs would have their proof the photos were faked, while the rest of us would have our proof the missions really occurred.

Speaking as someone who's had some experience in industrial relations, the concept of a solution which pleases no one is very attractive (it my experience, if everyone was unhappy with the resolution of a problem, we figured we were close to an ideal solution).

Of course, what blows the theory out the window is the idea that for 7 missions (Apollos 11 to 17) NASA kept fouling up the photography. It's believeable that there might be some effect on or near the Moon which affects photography, and which wasn't thought of at first. After all, it took until Apollo 12 for people to realise that a Saturn 5 could act as a lightning rod.

But the point is that whatever problems arose on any mission were sorted out by the next one. So even if there were problems with photography on the Moon for Apollo 11, you can be sure they would've been sorted out for Apollo 12. They certainly wouldn't have continued for the remaining missions.

CraigZ
2002-Feb-07, 06:25 AM
On 2002-02-05 11:31, SpacedOut wrote:
I’m sorry but I have a hard time accepting the expertise of someone trying to analyze photos when the person doesn’t even have a basic understanding of parallax! As for http://www.clavius.org, while the site may not specifically use CraigZ’s photos, the site goes to great lengths to explain the basics of photography and how you must have a very good understanding of the subject before you can do in depth analyses of photographs. I suggest that CraigZ spend a few hours visiting the site as a start of his education

I regret that I too have contributed to the site’s hit count – I forgot that the more hits one of these HB sites get, the more the author feels vindicated.

JayUtah - You took care of this while I was writting it. I should have checked the BB prior to formally posting.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SpacedOut on 2002-02-05 13:48 ]</font>



I understand parallax, a 3 year old would basically understand parallax, and you know it. And I sure ain't no expert at anything. What I don't understand is why every time Dave Scott took a photo of Jim Irwin with Mt. Hadley in the background, the top of Hadley is basically straight.
near the end of EVA2:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/20135257.jpg

in 11866, he was using Irwin's camera and didn't put it in his RCU bracket in this real video. Notice his right lean.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/a15v.1635901.ram

and here in this real video the camera is in his RCU, we can't tell if he took it out or not. Did he usually take his camera out of his RCU bracket? If so, oops on my part. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/a15v.1485317.ram

but the mountain top is still basically straight. A 10-15 degree difference in mountain angles, that are 3 miles away and about 2.5 miles from a camera that (may be) in his RCU bracket. The only thing I can figure is that Dave Scott was mis-cropped on both pics.

thanks,
CraigZ

JayUtah
2002-Feb-07, 01:58 PM
I understand parallax, a 3 year old would basically understand parallax, and you know it.

No, most hoax believers don't understand parallax, or else they conveniently forget about it when "analyzing" Apollo photos. You talk about crater patterns and wonder about it being "explained away easily." It is explained away easily, and if you had known anything about parallax to start with you wouldn't have drawn the circles and arrows into your proof photos and talked about it at all. People who understand parallax generally don't need to call attention to it as something that's putatively fishy.

And I sure ain't no expert at anything.

This much is clear. There are several principles of photography of which you seem to be almost completely ignorant. 95% of your evidence can be summarily shot down on that basis.

This particular argument is quite easily dealt with. The fixed elements of the photos remain in almost perfect alignment. The mountain background, the LM, and the flagpole line up in every photo.

Further, the variable elements of the photos (i.e., the astronaut) actually become more coherent when the image boundaries are ignored and the photos are rectified using the background and foreground elements as alignment guides.

What I don't understand is why every time Dave Scott took a photo of Jim Irwin with Mt. Hadley in the background, the top of Hadley is basically straight.

What's not to understand? The camera was canted at different angles for the various shots. Some of the cant angles resemble others, some are unique. This explains all the visible effects. Wild speculations about cut-and-paste astronauts or falling drops raise far more questions that they answer.

Did he usually take his camera out of his RCU bracket?

If an astronaut is being handed a camera to take one photo and then he will likely hand it back to his crewmate, it's unnecessary and a waste of time to put it in the RCU mount.

CraigZ
2002-Feb-07, 02:03 PM
On 2002-02-05 11:24, JayUtah wrote:
I'm the nutcase with the website..

Greetings. I'm the webmaster of Clavius.org.

here's the not-so-round earth link.

Okay, now prove it's squashed in the original negative, not in the hasty scan posted on ALSJ.

I've found a number of spatially distorted photos on ALSJ, but only in the photos which have only numbers as their file names, not in those which have their NASA catalogue numbers for file names.

So I did the unthinkable. I sent an e-mail to Kipp Teague, the photo curator of ALSJ, and asked what was up. The answer is quite satisfactory. The inferior photos were scanned by an automated process in the 1980s. How else would you scan 20,000 photographs? It involved loading a second-generation master onto a fairly primitive negative drive scanner modified to accommodate 70mm longrolls.

This type of scanner is made for speed, not quality. And if you examine the photogrammetric fiducials in the scanned photos, you'll notice a tendency to compress the image in the roll-longitudinal direction -- the vertical axis in the photographs. This also corresponds to the direction of the scan head motion.

The "numbered" ALSJ photos are known by researchers not to be spatially faithful. That's why real research is done from contact copies of the transparencies, or photogrammetrically controlled prints.

Further, your Photo 7 is not evidence of an egg-shaped appearance to the earth in Apollo photographs. The falloff in intensity of illumination on the cloud cover at the 4 o'clock position on the disk should have been a clue that you're looking at the terminator, not the disk boundary.

Someone dropped 11866 7-8 degrees and raised 11863 7-8 degrees, of course they're gonna match. Irwin (11866) should be tilted more than what he is.

But that's the point. You're using the astronaut as your estimate of "up". John is pointing out that the backgrounds do in fact match if you consider the mountain top orientation in connection with the LM orientation and the flagpole orientation. John is not using the image boundaries as a reference as most hoax believers inexplicably do.

... it's just I can't get anyone pro-NASA to say so. Must be a pandora's box thing.

Not at all. First of all, I am not "pro-NASA". I merely believe the evidence against the Apollo moon landings is incredibly ignorant.

Second, nobody should have to "admit" to some hypothetical process of falsification when it's clear to anyone with actual photographic experience what is going on. You seem to want the NASA crowd to meet you halfway, and you promise you won't gloat. I can't do that if I find all your evidence faulty.

As for http://www.clavius.org they don't mention most of the photos (if any) I have. And whoever posted that should've known before they posted.

Whoever posted that noted that many of your "other arguments" are covered at Clavius, not necessarily your photographs. You speak at length on the whys and werefores of the hoax theory. So do we.

They won't respond to my questions

Very well. See below.

Ask up, if you want.

I too would like to know your level and focus of education.

I too would like to know if you have any photographic experience involving manual exposure and hand developing. Have you ever retouched or modified a photo using only mechanical or chemical techniques?

Your assertions:

Opening paragraph. I do not vehemently defend NASA. I defend the historical authenticity of the Apollo landings. I do not claim no photo was faked. I claim that the evidence I have been shown in the attempt to prove that various photos are fake, is the most absurd evidence I've ever been shown.

Regarding hoax believers being of sub-par intelligence, I can't vouch for that. But having been professionally trained as an engineer and having apprenticed as a photographer prior to that, I can say that the hoax believers exhibit almost total ignorance of these and other applicable fields. I don't claim they're dumb; I claim they're either underinformed or misinformed.

Photos 1-4. John Witts has provided a satisfactory explanation. Everything in those photos can be explained in terms of camera location and orientation. Further, your hypothesis does not answer parallax observations in what you claim to be a backdrop.

Photos 5-6. Taken from scans known to be variously spatially distorted by the scanning process.

Photo 7. Answered above. You apparently do not know what earth's terminator looks like.

Photos 8-9. Of course a smudge on a photograph is not proof. But it is, however, something that hoax believers must explain. Had you obtained and read the paper in which this photograph was presented, you would have learned that it is not a visible-spectrum photograph. It is, in fact, a collection of registered images taken in various wavelengths and processed digitally. This is how most "photographs" taken with remote sensing spacecraft are produced.

Photo 8 is a visible spectrum photograph.

You're right: you are not a scientist. But you seem to be very liberal with your assertions that something is "absolutely ridiculous" before you have fully investigated it.

Photos 10-12. You seem completely oblivious to the effects of exposure and scattering. Your assertion that the sun disk should appear identical in size and intensity in all the photos exposes (pun intended) your inexperience in photography.

Had you done a thorough survey of the ALSJ photos and read the accompanying text, you would have understood the scattering effect produced by a coat of fine lunar dust on the lens. You would have seen other evidence of this phenomenon in a number of other photos.

And if you knew anything about optics you would know that even a perfectly clean lens will scatter light.

(By the way: Please use the NASA catalogue numbers, e.g., AS15-84-11348, instead of ALSJ file names. Those have meaning only in the ALSJ while the photo IDs are a universal reference. Those of us who may wish to consult other photo sources can't use the ALSJ file name to do so.)

Photo 13. Lies near the end of roll 84/MM and therefore is susceptible to sunstrike. The vertical patch of overexposure just left of center confirms sunstrike. The anomaly in question is thus likely to be post-exposure light contamination that occurred as the magazine was removed from the camera body.

If you measure the fiducials in this photo, you will find it is evidence for my assertion above that the photos in the "number" series are frequently squashed vertically.

Photo 13b. Your assumption that the patch of light in the picture is the sun is naive. The lunar module windows are angled downward. This means that from the pilot's standing point of view the window would tend to reflect objects on the LM's ceiling. Above the pilot's head is a rectangular docking window. The shading on the command module in the photo indicates the sun is roughly above the LM. The light scattering effect of condensate and chemicals outgassing from the window seals is well documented and evident in most photographs of the spacecraft interior. You are seeing the reflection of scattered sunlight through the docking window, reflected on the main window through which the photograph was taken.

Photo 14. No reference is given and the photo is of poor quality. Please provide either the NASA photo ID or a clearer photo.

Photo 15. Taken nearly up-sun. What you assume is reflected light on the lunar surface are "rays" scattered by the camera lens.

Photo 16-17. Your hypothesis is that the edge darkening is a byproduct of having airbrushed out the original background to replace it with a black sky.

You correctly note that it happens only on black and white photographs, which is more than most hoax believers manage. However, your hypothesis doesn't really explain it.

Consider the following flaws in your observation.

1. Are you aware that the color film was reversal while the black and white film was negative? Do you know the difference in how each would have to be processed in order to get the image you're looking at?

2. You ignore the fact that other edge boundaries, not just terrain-sky boundaries, also exhibit edge darkening.

3. You ignore the fact that it does not appear in adjacent photos on the roll, photos apparently snapped only seconds apart.

Consider the following misconceptions regarding airbrushes:

1. An airbrush would indeed leave such an indistinct edge -- but only in the hands of a complete novice. Even beginning airbrush artists are taught the principles of masking. In fact, it's a fundamental skill to the medium. Your hypothesis does not present a plausible use of an airbrush.

2. Airbrushes are not the only tools that can be used to mechanically alter photos. Airbrushes are used only when smooth gradients are needed. To obtain high opacity or sharp lines, regular bristle brushes are commonly used. Your hypothesis does not present a plausible method of photo retouching.

3. Removing an original earth sky and replacing it with black is best done with razor techniques. It would be very labor-intensive to paint it uniform black when could be done much more quickly and easily done by razoring out the sky on a negative and printing from that. You get the uniform black background for free. Your hypothesis does not present a plausible method for this type of photo retouching.

You seem unconcerned that all the evidence points to insufficient agitation during the positive baths that would only affect black and white film (since the color film didn't require that process), only affect it in spots, and produce just such a "dodge" effect.

Photo 18-19. If the photographs were taken in broad daylight, how does your hypothesis explain the stark shadows?

Photo 20-21. You say you haven't been able find any evidence of a second flag. It took me 18 seconds to find this:


Cernan - "The flag that we took to deploy was the one that had hung on the wall of the Mission Control Center during all the landing missions. And we also had another flag, which we brought back to replace the one that we deployed at Taurus-Littrow." See NASA photo
S73-38346 which shows Gene and Jack persenting the replacement flag to Gene Kranz in the MOCR in December 1973.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/a17.alsepoff.html

Maybe people don't answer your questions because it's obvious you aren't looking very hard yourself for the answers.

Bright surface photos. Do you understand photo exposure? Do you understand exposure latitude in reversal film? It has nothing to do with "NBs" admitting that "HBs" were "right all along." You seem to have no clue how photography works.

Returning to the moon. Clavius deals with this at length. A point not mentioned there is how badly Apollo 13 had scared everyone -- they decided to quit at 17 because of that. Nowadays there is no social mandate to go, so we don't go. It's not NASA's decision. It's the decision of the U.S. public.

NASA's viability. NASA did in fact suffer through numerous failures in the early 1960s. Your hypothesis is historically inaccurate.

Distraction from Vietnam. Again, historically inaccurate. The same people who were protesting Vietnam were also protesting the moon landings. And "Tricky Dicky" had almost nothing to do with Apollo except to slash its budget and accept all the accolades for the Johnson administration's work.

The whistle-blower theory. It's not a rumor going around the Internet but rather the subject of a 500-page book by David Percy. Releasing photos on the Internet is irrelevant. The photos have been available on the Internet since the mid 1980s, and in print and transparency form since the mid-1970s. They have always been in the hands of expert photo analysts and qualified researchers from all over the world.

Making them available on the Internet simply makes it easier for uninformed, uneducated, inexperienced people to download them from the comfort of their living rooms and make up wild stories about them.

I concur with the opinions given already. Your site certainly doesn't "foam at the mouth" like other sites, but it is nevertheless based on assumption you've made in the absence of experience, knowledge, and careful research. You're jumping repeatedly to hoax-based conclusions to explain what you believe are anomalies. Yet you seem not to want to be considered a hoax believer.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-02-05 11:29 ]</font>


I'll try and keep this as short as possible (within reason), I don't want to try your patience.

On the not-sound-earth pic, if I found an AS15-XX-XXXXX number on it then it wouldn't be Mr. Teague's 'fault' (for lack of a better word)?

Pic. 8, It's either too late in the night to be typing this and I'm not seeing things correctly but did you just say pic 8 was not a visible spectrum pic and then in the next paragraph say it was?

pic, 12 Am I understanding you correctly, lunar dust? Is lunar dust why this sun seems so huge in this Apollo 12 pic?
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a12/as12-46-6806HR.jpg

And would it be ignorant of me not understanding why it seems this earth (from Apollo 17)
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/as17-134-20387-cropped.jpg
could not eclipse the afore mentioned Apollo 12 sun? If I'm not allowed to jump missions (for some reason) why does it appear it wouldn't eclipse an Apollo 17 up sun shot?

Pic, 13. I knew you thought that to be a sunstrike pic, I've been to your website. I was trying to get someone to say it was a lens flare, then I was going to point them to your sunstrike page, but no one claimed it was. As for the anomalies at top, going perpindicular to the sunstrike. Could these anomalies appear without a sunstrike?

This is a numbered link pic, it's ID is AS15-82-11216. I don't think this a sunstike, but what is it?

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/20147789.jpg


pic 13b, I don't see that, there's no reflected light on anything in the LM. No silhouette or reflection of the photographer or anything else. Must be my naivety showing.

pic 14, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/as15-92-12424.jpg

pic 15,
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/as15-85-11514.jpg

Again, I don't see it. Someone posted in newsgroup SSH that it was the astronauts white suit reflecting in. I can see that given the high spot of where the light is stiking.

Could I put your explanations on my website?

thanks for responding,
CraigZ

Valiant Dancer
2002-Feb-07, 03:44 PM
On 2002-02-07 09:03, CraigZ wrote:
pic 15,
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/as15-85-11514.jpg

Again, I don't see it. Someone posted in newsgroup SSH that it was the astronauts white suit reflecting in. I can see that given the high spot of where the light is stiking.

Could I put your explanations on my website?

thanks for responding,
CraigZ




I looked at this picture. It looks like there is reflected light off the top of the astronauts helmet. That splotch near the top of the frame is of the same general size and shape of the bright spot on the helmet and a straight line can be drawn from the flash on the helmet through the splotch on the film and the diffuse stuff at the very top of the picture.

JayUtah
2002-Feb-07, 03:59 PM
I don't want to try your patience.

You'll find I have an enormous amount of patience if people merely ask for explanations or argue their cases well. You'll find I have very low patience for arguments based on ignorance or ad nauseam insistences. Ignorance itself isn't a problem. Understanding the picky details of Apollo or any space enterprise often requires very specialized skills that not everyone has or is expected to have.

On the not-sound-earth pic, if I found an AS15-XX-XXXXX number on it then it wouldn't be Mr. Teague's 'fault' (for lack of a better word)?

Not necessarily. Anyone can change a file name without changing the picture. The JSC scans from the 1980s are known to have color distortion, value distortion, and vertical space distortion. If you found a digital photo that you could reasonably assure yourself was not from the JSC scans, you could indeed argue that the problems with the JSC scans do not apply. However, other problems may apply.

If you're dealing with digital photos exclusively, you must also deal with the fact that no scanner is perfect. Granted, most desktop scanners today would do a much better job that the transparency scanner JSC used in the 1980s, but you must account for aberration in any photos you deal with -- even high-quality prints. For example, many prints of Aldrin descending the LM ladder have been overexposed during printing to compensate for the dark lighting conditions.

The only foolproof evidence of an egg-shaped earth would come from examining a contact transparency of the master for this photo. That's the only way you can reasonbly eliminate the sources of distortion induced by a duplication process. The only argument against an egg-shaped earth at that point would be shrinkage of the master, which is rather farfetched.

It's not that hard to get research quality photo reproductions from the Apollo sets. NASA has a photo contractor to handle those requests. It's not free, however.

Pic. 8 ... was not a visible spectrum pic

I may have made a typo. Let me try it again without the ambiguity.

The photo taken from lunar orbit showing the LM's shadow is a visible spectrum photograph. It was made by aiming the camera out of the CM window.

The Clementine photo that allegedly shows the Apollo 15 landing site disturbed by the DPS, is not a visible spectrum photograph. It was created digitally by "registering" (i.e., exactly superimposing) various original digital Clementine photos of the same area taken in various spectra -- visible and invisible (e.g., ultraviolet) -- and algorithmically computing the final image on a pixel-by-pixel basis.

Clementine was intended to gather information about mineral deposits and the chemical composition of the lunar surface. This can be done remotely by multispectral imaging. The Clementine photo so clearly shows the DPS disturbance because the algebraic process of combination used for this photo is one which is known to be able to detect recent disturbances in the lunar regolith.

pic, 12 Am I understanding you correctly, lunar dust?

Not clouds of it, of course, but a fine layer on the camera lens.

Is lunar dust why this sun seems so huge in this Apollo 12 pic?

Possibly, but certainly not necessarily.

Do you understand film saturation? Remember that film is exposed over time. The shutter opens and light starts striking the film. It continues to do so until the shutter closes. What the film records is an accumulation of all the light that has fallen onto it during that length of time. That's why in night shots of city streets you see long streaks instead of tail lights. The light moved, but the film recorded it at all the points along the way. The image didn't "disappear" from the film when the light moved away from its initial position.

Saturation occurs when the film is simply unable to respond any further to light. So much light has fallen on the film that it's as dark or light (depending on what kind of film it is) as it's going to get. The little silver salt crystals in the emulsion have all done their thing.

Scattering is a particular interaction that occurs between light rays and a lens. When light strikes a lens, basic optics describes the process of refraction which produces a focused image. That's the theory. In the real world, when light strikes the lens it doesn't refract perfectly. Irregularities in the lens surface (microscopic or even molecular) mean that some of the light rays are bent more than others. So a perfectly parallel "bundle" of light rays may enter the lens, but when they come out the other side they're a sort of cone of slightly diverging rays. This means some of the rays will strike the film a short distance away from where they were intended to.

Dust or other contaminants on the lens greatly increase the scattering. This is why some Apollo pictures are foggy or have bluish halos around the brighter areas. (The shorter the wavelength, the more susceptible a light ray is to scattering.) But it can happen with the most expensive lens that has been scrupulously cleaned.

Normally the divergent light rays are not photographically significant. That is, a good lens will not scatter enough light to drastically affect the picture. But when you shoot straight at the sun, an enormous amount of light enters the lens. This means the amount of scattered light increases. In fact, the amount of scattered light from the sun is so great that it not only exposes the film, it saturates it. So not only do you have the patch of saturation on the film that would correspond to the image of the sun, but you have the surrounding patch of saturation that resulted from the scattering of the lens.

Reversal film, which is the type of color film used on Apollo, has what photographers call a narrow exposure latitude. Modern amateur film has ridiculously wide exposure latitudes. That means you don't have to precisely adjust the camera. The film will "forgive" you for sloppy exposure settings and give you a good picture.
Kodak Ektachrome is merciless. Professional photographers who use it usually "bracket" the metered exposure. That means they set the camera according to the light meter and take a photo, then they take one that's underexposed relative to that, and other that's relatively overexposed. One of them will usually turn out.

What this means for up-sun Apollo shots is that saturation occurs relatively quickly given even a very small amount of excess light. The same photo taken with negative film wouldn't show as bright a disk.

So how do we account for the differing sizes of apparent sun disks in color photos? Exposure.

The photographer is not trying to take a picture of the sun. He's trying to take a picture of whatever else is in the picture. In the large Apollo 12 photo case, he's taking an up-sun picture of the astronaut and the equipment in the background. Basic photo technique says to overexpose when shooting up-sun.

Compare this to taking a photo of the earth from orbit, which also happens to include the sun. The earth is amazingly bright from orbit. You can actually take pictures of the lunar surface lit only by reflected light from earth. So when you're taking a picture of something brightly lit, basic technique says to underexpose (to avoid saturation). You can always "push" it later in the darkroom.

The greater the exposure, the more scattering you will capture on the film and the bigger the apparent size of the sun will be.

I realize these are esoteric subjects, but you simply must be fully aware of the differences in how the camera perceives light and how the eye perceives light. You cannot hope to discuss these things intelligently unless you have an expert knowledge of photography. Unfortunately you seem to have a very basic knowledge -- if that -- so if you'll consent to being educated, there are plenty here who can teach you.

why does it appear it wouldn't eclipse an Apollo 17 up sun shot?

Because the earth is not bright enough to cause scatter-related saturation at this exposure setting. If you could magically eliminate the effects of scattering and saturation in the photos, the sun disk would appear about one sixth the size of the earth disk, accounting for phase.

Could these anomalies appear without a sunstrike?

Absolutely. If you re-read my response you'll find I didn't claim the anomalies at the top were sunstrike, merely that the photo is sunstruck. This, combined with the photo ID number, tells us the frame was in a vulnerable spot toward the end of the roll in the magazine after the magazine was removed. That in turn brings to bear a number of possibilities, including light contamination or possibly physical damage from the winding mechanism or magazine cover.

it's ID is AS15-82-11216. I don't think this a sunstike, but what is it?

This is a very classic case of sunstrike. The shadow one fiducial left of center is a dead giveaway. It's the shadow of a tab on the magazine cover.

pic 13b, I don't see that, there's no reflected light on anything in the LM.

The bright spot to the right of the CM is likely the reflection of sunlight off the window bezel.

No silhouette or reflection of the photographer or anything else. Must be my naivety showing.

Recall that the window is tilted outwards. From the pilot's point of view, the top of the window is farther away from him than the bottom. You can't expect to simultaneously see a reflection of the LM ceiling and of the photographer. Try this in the bathroom with a hand mirror.

The windows do have anti-glare coatings on them. Of course no anti-glare coating would be able to fully eliminated sun glare. But it might explain why the rest of the cabin ceiling might not be visible.

But the real answer is obvious. The lights in the LM cockpit are off for the same reason you don't generally drive your car at night with the dome lights on. If you turn on the dome light your view through the windshield is compromised by the reflection of the interior of the car. The instruments in the LM were backlit with a pretty blue light, so they don't need the cabin lights on in order to fly it.

pic 14

Ah, thank you. You're seeing the side shade partially lowered.

The Apollo LEVA helmet evolved during the program. In the J-missions (Apollos 15-17) the overhelmet included the see-through gold visor, but also a sort of sun shade that could be pulled down over the forehead to cut the glare. This featured a separate panel that could be rotated upward and secured to form something like the bill of a baseball cap. Side shields that slid down along the cheeks were also added.

Peruse the photo sets from the J-missions and you'll see the sun shades in various positions. In this photo the astronaut's "bill" is detached from the center shade, but not fastened in the up position. The side shade is partially lowered. Note the tab along the bottom edge.

I don't know what exactly you believe in anomalous in this photo, but I've seen more space helmets than I can shake a stick at and what I see in this photo is exactly what I would expect.

pic 15, Again, I don't see it. Someone posted in newsgroup SSH that it was the astronauts white suit reflecting in.

The sun is obviously shining brightly off the front of the OPS, but this has nothing to do with what's happening in his shadow.

Look back at some of your up-sun photographs and note the "ray" effects -- also caused by scattering. You can see that they always radiate outward from the sun. In many photos the lens rays are visible even if the sun itself is out of the frame.

Use the shadow and shading patterns on the suit to get an idea of where the sun is. Now look at the astronaut's shadow and at various other places in the full frame. You can see they're overlaid with these very same rays. There are enough of them to extrapolate back to where the sun would have to be if the frame were larger. You should see that it correlates with the shadows.

Further, there's a sort of halo effect happening. Lens rays tend to intensify a certain distance (in image space) from the image of the light source. This is caused by the light's interaction with the lens surface at the molecular level. Again, when photographing objects the scattering is negligible. Only when something provides an enormous amount of source light does scattering become photographically significant.

You must keep in mind that a photographic image is the accumulation of light that strikes the film plane. Once it has arrived and caused the photochemical changes in the emulsion, it is no longer a matter of whether that ray arrived directly through the lens or circuitously through some unintended optical route, or if the original source of the light goes away.

The film does not see the same things the eye sees.

Could I put your explanations on my website?

Of course. Anything I say in public is fair game for quoting, as long as you do so courteously and fairly.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-02-07 11:07 ]</font>

johnwitts
2002-Feb-07, 10:11 PM
CraigZ, do you drive at night? Do you, like me, drive with a perperually dirty windscreen? What happens when someone coming the other way leaves their lights on high? You can't see where you're going. The lights from the oncoming car look massive, even though they are relatively tiny compared to the whole road you are looking down. and your whole windscreen lights up. This phenomenon explains a few of your anomolies. Go out for a drive in the dark with a dirty windscreen and see how much of your vision in obscurred.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: johnwitts on 2002-02-07 17:13 ]</font>

SpacedOut
2002-Feb-07, 10:24 PM
Two questions for JayUtah:

Was the center crosshair thicker than the others? I’ve noticed that on a lot of the photos there doesn’t appear to be as much bleed through.

Your description of halation (a term I’d never heard) was excellent. Always good to learn something new. Showing my ignorance, were the consecutive frames close enough together to allow bleeding on adjacent frames? In particular, I wonder about the adjacent frame to:



pic, 12 Am I understanding you correctly, lunar dust? Is lunar dust why this sun seems so huge in this Apollo 12 pic?
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a12/as12-46-6806HR.jpg


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SpacedOut on 2002-02-07 17:27 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-Feb-08, 12:18 AM
Was the center crosshair thicker than the others?

No, but the lines were longer. They were uniformly 0.02 millimeter thick. It's actually one of the standard Hasselblad reseau plates. You can get one fitted on the EL/550 Data camera, which is the current version of the model on which the Apollo LEVA camera was based.

I’ve noticed that on a lot of the photos there doesn’t appear to be as much bleed through.

Halation would account for that, but the exposure setting and the material being photographed has the greatest effect on the fiducials.

Showing my ignorance, were the consecutive frames close enough together to allow bleeding on adjacent frames?

No. There is always a small gap between frames.

ToSeek
2002-Feb-08, 01:26 PM
On 2002-02-07 17:11, johnwitts wrote:
Go out for a drive in the dark with a dirty windscreen and see how much of your vision in obscured.


This sounds like rather unkind advice, akin to "go play in traffic." I'm sure we don't wish that, even of HBers. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

_________________
"... to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." - Tennyson, Ulysses


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ToSeek on 2002-02-08 08:29 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-Feb-08, 03:18 PM
This sounds like rather unkind advice

A safer experiment might be this. Take a picture of yourself using a flash-equipped camera (film, not digital) and a full-length mirror and note how large the burst of saturation appears in the final photo. You know the flash is only an inch or two square, but the burst as recorded on film will likely obscure your entire head.

J-Man
2002-Feb-08, 06:31 PM
CraigZ,
I must say that I am impressed to finally hear of a HB that can ask a question and listen to the response. Historically, most HB's tout the expression "you need to have an open mind", intended to persuade people to think that Apollo >possibly< did not happen. Yet they do not seem to have an open mind to the possiblity that they might be mistaken on several areas of physics, and refuse to acknowledge any accurate explanations.
I applaud your ability to assimulate new facts and explanations even though they may not be what you want to hear.

Kudos for you.

May you learn as much as I have from the people at BABB.

johnwitts
2002-Feb-08, 11:31 PM
This sounds like rather unkind advice

This was never meant to be unkind. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif It's just that I hardly ever wash my car, as it's so crappy (before anyone else jumps in), so I drive with a windscreen that is perpetually dirty where the wipers don't wipe. That's how I know that dirty glass scatters light when lit from behind.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: johnwitts on 2002-02-08 18:32 ]</font>

CraigZ
2002-Feb-09, 02:33 PM
On 2002-02-08 10:18, JayUtah wrote:
This sounds like rather unkind advice

A safer experiment might be this. Take a picture of yourself using a flash-equipped camera (film, not digital) and a full-length mirror and note how large the burst of saturation appears in the final photo. You know the flash is only an inch or two square, but the burst as recorded on film will likely obscure your entire head.



When you said "flash", I thought of a weld flash and found this.
http://www.ukpandi.com/lp9812/weld.jpg
If the analogy is accurate enough, a definite eye-opener.

But I thought the f-stop (5.6?) would've prevented the sun from saturating the film with light and/or they used some kind of 'antihalation' film, if such a thing existed then.

CraigZ

JayUtah
2002-Feb-09, 03:56 PM
When you said "flash", I thought of a weld flash and found this.

Perfect example. A welding arc is only a fraction of an inch in size, but it will provide enough light for scatter and saturation.

But I thought the f-stop (5.6?) would've prevented the sun

No. f/5.6 is a very open lens. Most lenses will only open to f/2.8, which is only one stop from f/5.6. And most lenses will only close to f/16 or f/22. There are mechanical limits at each extreme.

Both shutter speed and f-stop can be used to adjust the exposure, but each has a side effect that may be undesirable.

For example, if you want to take a picture of a fountain, you need a shutter speed of about 1/60. If you use a faster shutter speed it will actually freeze the water droplets in mid-flight and your picture will look artificial. You have to keep the shutter open longer so that the cascade produces streaks on the film. That gives a more realistic photo.

But in that case you would have to adjust the f-stop or else you'll overexpose the shot. If you have ISO 100 film in sunny outdoor conditions, you'll want to set for f/22.

Shutter speed is often used to introduce or eliminate indications of motion as desired.

The aperture has the side effect of changing the depth of field -- the tolerance at which the focus is set. Higher f-stops give you more depth of field. Sometimes a photographer will use optical focus to provide compositional focus. Therefore having the whole frame in focus is undesirable. At the other extreme, a wide open aperture may mean that your subject can't be entirely focused. His nose may be in focus but his ears aren't.

Cinematographers run into this all the time. Shutter speeds on motion picture cameras are limited by the frame rate. In theory, at 24 fps you could have a 1/24 shutter speed, but for practical reasons of shutter design and film travel in the gate, you need susbstantially faster shutter speeds. Yet the cinematographer may want more depth of field so that the subject and background are simultaneously in focus. That means a stopped-down lens. What's the answer? Lots and lots of light. That's why film sets are often brilliantly lit, yet the final film appears natural.

The point is that the purpose for which you are taking the photo may dictate how you use the exposure controls on the camera. For example, the Olympic opening ceremony took place about half a mile from my house last night. (I live just down the hill from the stadium.) Of course I photographed some of the fireworks, and the presidential motorcade as it passed my house. Night shots require a very open lens because you can't use shutter speeds of 1/30 or 1/15 second. The film blurs. So we'll see if there's any depth of field in them. Probably not.

(Sorry for the shameless plug; it was very exciting and I had to find a way to work it into this post.) /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

The sun is simply too bright. Photo flashes at close range are too bright. Welding arcs are too bright. The exposure controls of the typical camera are meant to vary the exposure across the range appropriate to human vision. They are tuned for light levels normally encountered in everyday life, the amounts of sunlight or artificial light reflected of normal surfaces. These are very small quantities of light compared to what comes directly from the sun.

You can compare it to a postal scale. It's meant to weigh letters on the order of ounces and a few pounds. If you try to weigh a cement truck, the scale won't do it and will likely be destroyed. There are scales suitable for weighing cement trucks, but they won't accurately weigh postal items.

The short answer is that the controls of the camera will indeed affect saturation, but in the case of photographing the sun directly they don't have sufficient range of control to eliminate it.

But the question of whether the camera can be adjusted or how to do it is eclipsed by the question of whether or not you should do it.

Let's take your welder photo. Imagine a hypothetical lens that could be stopped down to f/200 or so, and this was the setting that would correctly expose the welding arc. If you snapped the photo, you'd get a photo only of the welding arc -- a little blue spot in the middle of a completely dark frame.

With various filters and exposure settings I can directly photograph the sun with normal film. With a telephoto lens I can actually photograph sunspots. But if I use the same apparatus to attempt normal photography, I get a long string of completely black photos.

The limitations of photography means the photographer often has to settle with parts of his photos being over- or underexposed in order to correctly expose the part of the scene he's interested in.

The shots of Aldrin descending the ladder correctly expose Aldrin and the LM, but the lunar surface behind him is overexposed. The film is saturated. But although it's enough to saturate the film, it's not so bright that the scatter from the lens has produced a flare and rays like the sun would. The scatter has only eliminated the detail that would otherwise be visible.

The point is that Armstrong didn't care that the background would be overexposed. He was actually an accomplished photographer before becoming an astronaut, so he knew how to take photos in shadow. He was interested in Aldrin, and so he set the camera to correctly expose that part of the frame.

The photographer of your photo wanted to take a picture of the welder, not the welder's arc. And in doing so he accepted that the arc would saturate the film and that lens scatter would produce a big burst of saturation around it. But that's just the tradeoff of photography. It's okay to let parts of the photo go wonky if you get what you want in the other parts.

'antihalation' film, if such a thing existed then.

It did. Various means to control halation have been used since the early glass plate days. But halation isn't necessarily a major contributor to the large sun disk in the photo. If it were, we should be able to look at photographs in which the sun is near the edge of the frame, and it would want to "smear" radially away from the center of the frame. Disks near the center of the frame wouldn't necessarily exhibit any halation effects.

I haven't taken any measurements of these sun disks to confirm whether they are perfectly round or whether they are elliptical in a way that halation would cause. But to the naked eye the sun disks don't appear distorted.

Halation, if you recall, is light interacting inappropriately with the film base. Scattering is light interacting inappropriately with the lens. No adjustment to the film formulation can compensate for it, and it's this which creates the large image of the sun disk. Newer lenses employ different coatings to reduce scatter, but you can never fully eliminate it. It's theoretically impossible if you understand how light interacts with the lens surface at a molecular level.

The film base must be as transparent as possible. Antihalation base coatings used during the early and mid 1900s compromise this. And so they must be removed physically or chemically during development. This adds an extra step to the developing process with the possibility of damaging the emulsion.

So Kodak has concentrated on producing film bases whose optical properties provide both the perfect transparency for accurate reproduction, and the resistance to refraction and interreflection that eliminates halation. The Estar base was thought to be resistant to halation simply because it was so much thinner. And it is. Halation seems only to be a problem when you are concerned with very fine details like fiducials near the edges of the frame. And it doesn't even have that great an effect on the fiducials -- the normal bleed in the emulsion is a more pronounced effect.

To say that halation was a problem in the Apollo film is misleading. The point about halation is intended solely to show that the disappearance of the fiducials correlates to known principles of photography, therefore allegations of falsification are unparsimonious.

jessica
2002-Apr-13, 03:02 PM
On 2002-02-07 10:59, JayUtah wrote:
I don't want to try your patience.

You'll find I have an enormous amount of patience if people merely ask for explanations or argue their cases well. You'll find I have very low patience for arguments based on ignorance or ad nauseam insistences. Ignorance itself isn't a problem. Understanding the picky details of Apollo or any space enterprise often requires very specialized skills that not everyone has or is expected to have.

On the not-sound-earth pic, if I found an AS15-XX-XXXXX number on it then it wouldn't be Mr. Teague's 'fault' (for lack of a better word)?

Not necessarily. Anyone can change a file name without changing the picture. The JSC scans from the 1980s are known to have color distortion, value distortion, and vertical space distortion. If you found a digital photo that you could reasonably assure yourself was not from the JSC scans, you could indeed argue that the problems with the JSC scans do not apply. However, other problems may apply.

If you're dealing with digital photos exclusively, you must also deal with the fact that no scanner is perfect. Granted, most desktop scanners today would do a much better job that the transparency scanner JSC used in the 1980s, but you must account for aberration in any photos you deal with -- even high-quality prints. For example, many prints of Aldrin descending the LM ladder have been overexposed during printing to compensate for the dark lighting conditions.

The only foolproof evidence of an egg-shaped earth would come from examining a contact transparency of the master for this photo. That's the only way you can reasonbly eliminate the sources of distortion induced by a duplication process. The only argument against an egg-shaped earth at that point would be shrinkage of the master, which is rather farfetched.

It's not that hard to get research quality photo reproductions from the Apollo sets. NASA has a photo contractor to handle those requests. It's not free, however.

Pic. 8 ... was not a visible spectrum pic

I may have made a typo. Let me try it again without the ambiguity.

The photo taken from lunar orbit showing the LM's shadow is a visible spectrum photograph. It was made by aiming the camera out of the CM window.

The Clementine photo that allegedly shows the Apollo 15 landing site disturbed by the DPS, is not a visible spectrum photograph. It was created digitally by "registering" (i.e., exactly superimposing) various original digital Clementine photos of the same area taken in various spectra -- visible and invisible (e.g., ultraviolet) -- and algorithmically computing the final image on a pixel-by-pixel basis.

Clementine was intended to gather information about mineral deposits and the chemical composition of the lunar surface. This can be done remotely by multispectral imaging. The Clementine photo so clearly shows the DPS disturbance because the algebraic process of combination used for this photo is one which is known to be able to detect recent disturbances in the lunar regolith.

pic, 12 Am I understanding you correctly, lunar dust?

Not clouds of it, of course, but a fine layer on the camera lens.

Is lunar dust why this sun seems so huge in this Apollo 12 pic?

Possibly, but certainly not necessarily.

Do you understand film saturation? Remember that film is exposed over time. The shutter opens and light starts striking the film. It continues to do so until the shutter closes. What the film records is an accumulation of all the light that has fallen onto it during that length of time. That's why in night shots of city streets you see long streaks instead of tail lights. The light moved, but the film recorded it at all the points along the way. The image didn't "disappear" from the film when the light moved away from its initial position.

Saturation occurs when the film is simply unable to respond any further to light. So much light has fallen on the film that it's as dark or light (depending on what kind of film it is) as it's going to get. The little silver salt crystals in the emulsion have all done their thing.

Scattering is a particular interaction that occurs between light rays and a lens. When light strikes a lens, basic optics describes the process of refraction which produces a focused image. That's the theory. In the real world, when light strikes the lens it doesn't refract perfectly. Irregularities in the lens surface (microscopic or even molecular) mean that some of the light rays are bent more than others. So a perfectly parallel "bundle" of light rays may enter the lens, but when they come out the other side they're a sort of cone of slightly diverging rays. This means some of the rays will strike the film a short distance away from where they were intended to.

Dust or other contaminants on the lens greatly increase the scattering. This is why some Apollo pictures are foggy or have bluish halos around the brighter areas. (The shorter the wavelength, the more susceptible a light ray is to scattering.) But it can happen with the most expensive lens that has been scrupulously cleaned.

Normally the divergent light rays are not photographically significant. That is, a good lens will not scatter enough light to drastically affect the picture. But when you shoot straight at the sun, an enormous amount of light enters the lens. This means the amount of scattered light increases. In fact, the amount of scattered light from the sun is so great that it not only exposes the film, it saturates it. So not only do you have the patch of saturation on the film that would correspond to the image of the sun, but you have the surrounding patch of saturation that resulted from the scattering of the lens.

Reversal film, which is the type of color film used on Apollo, has what photographers call a narrow exposure latitude. Modern amateur film has ridiculously wide exposure latitudes. That means you don't have to precisely adjust the camera. The film will "forgive" you for sloppy exposure settings and give you a good picture.
Kodak Ektachrome is merciless. Professional photographers who use it usually "bracket" the metered exposure. That means they set the camera according to the light meter and take a photo, then they take one that's underexposed relative to that, and other that's relatively overexposed. One of them will usually turn out.

What this means for up-sun Apollo shots is that saturation occurs relatively quickly given even a very small amount of excess light. The same photo taken with negative film wouldn't show as bright a disk.

So how do we account for the differing sizes of apparent sun disks in color photos? Exposure.

The photographer is not trying to take a picture of the sun. He's trying to take a picture of whatever else is in the picture. In the large Apollo 12 photo case, he's taking an up-sun picture of the astronaut and the equipment in the background. Basic photo technique says to overexpose when shooting up-sun.

Compare this to taking a photo of the earth from orbit, which also happens to include the sun. The earth is amazingly bright from orbit. You can actually take pictures of the lunar surface lit only by reflected light from earth. So when you're taking a picture of something brightly lit, basic technique says to underexpose (to avoid saturation). You can always "push" it later in the darkroom.

The greater the exposure, the more scattering you will capture on the film and the bigger the apparent size of the sun will be.

I realize these are esoteric subjects, but you simply must be fully aware of the differences in how the camera perceives light and how the eye perceives light. You cannot hope to discuss these things intelligently unless you have an expert knowledge of photography. Unfortunately you seem to have a very basic knowledge -- if that -- so if you'll consent to being educated, there are plenty here who can teach you.

why does it appear it wouldn't eclipse an Apollo 17 up sun shot?

Because the earth is not bright enough to cause scatter-related saturation at this exposure setting. If you could magically eliminate the effects of scattering and saturation in the photos, the sun disk would appear about one sixth the size of the earth disk, accounting for phase.

Could these anomalies appear without a sunstrike?

Absolutely. If you re-read my response you'll find I didn't claim the anomalies at the top were sunstrike, merely that the photo is sunstruck. This, combined with the photo ID number, tells us the frame was in a vulnerable spot toward the end of the roll in the magazine after the magazine was removed. That in turn brings to bear a number of possibilities, including light contamination or possibly physical damage from the winding mechanism or magazine cover.

it's ID is AS15-82-11216. I don't think this a sunstike, but what is it?

This is a very classic case of sunstrike. The shadow one fiducial left of center is a dead giveaway. It's the shadow of a tab on the magazine cover.

pic 13b, I don't see that, there's no reflected light on anything in the LM.

The bright spot to the right of the CM is likely the reflection of sunlight off the window bezel.

No silhouette or reflection of the photographer or anything else. Must be my naivety showing.

Recall that the window is tilted outwards. From the pilot's point of view, the top of the window is farther away from him than the bottom. You can't expect to simultaneously see a reflection of the LM ceiling and of the photographer. Try this in the bathroom with a hand mirror.

The windows do have anti-glare coatings on them. Of course no anti-glare coating would be able to fully eliminated sun glare. But it might explain why the rest of the cabin ceiling might not be visible.

But the real answer is obvious. The lights in the LM cockpit are off for the same reason you don't generally drive your car at night with the dome lights on. If you turn on the dome light your view through the windshield is compromised by the reflection of the interior of the car. The instruments in the LM were backlit with a pretty blue light, so they don't need the cabin lights on in order to fly it.

pic 14

Ah, thank you. You're seeing the side shade partially lowered.

The Apollo LEVA helmet evolved during the program. In the J-missions (Apollos 15-17) the overhelmet included the see-through gold visor, but also a sort of sun shade that could be pulled down over the forehead to cut the glare. This featured a separate panel that could be rotated upward and secured to form something like the bill of a baseball cap. Side shields that slid down along the cheeks were also added.

Peruse the photo sets from the J-missions and you'll see the sun shades in various positions. In this photo the astronaut's "bill" is detached from the center shade, but not fastened in the up position. The side shade is partially lowered. Note the tab along the bottom edge.

I don't know what exactly you believe in anomalous in this photo, but I've seen more space helmets than I can shake a stick at and what I see in this photo is exactly what I would expect.

pic 15, Again, I don't see it. Someone posted in newsgroup SSH that it was the astronauts white suit reflecting in.

The sun is obviously shining brightly off the front of the OPS, but this has nothing to do with what's happening in his shadow.

Look back at some of your up-sun photographs and note the "ray" effects -- also caused by scattering. You can see that they always radiate outward from the sun. In many photos the lens rays are visible even if the sun itself is out of the frame.

Use the shadow and shading patterns on the suit to get an idea of where the sun is. Now look at the astronaut's shadow and at various other places in the full frame. You can see they're overlaid with these very same rays. There are enough of them to extrapolate back to where the sun would have to be if the frame were larger. You should see that it correlates with the shadows.

Further, there's a sort of halo effect happening. Lens rays tend to intensify a certain distance (in image space) from the image of the light source. This is caused by the light's interaction with the lens surface at the molecular level. Again, when photographing objects the scattering is negligible. Only when something provides an enormous amount of source light does scattering become photographically significant.

You must keep in mind that a photographic image is the accumulation of light that strikes the film plane. Once it has arrived and caused the photochemical changes in the emulsion, it is no longer a matter of whether that ray arrived directly through the lens or circuitously through some unintended optical route, or if the original source of the light goes away.

The film does not see the same things the eye sees.

Could I put your explanations on my website?

Of course. Anything I say in public is fair game for quoting, as long as you do so courteously and fairly.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-02-07 11:07 ]</font>

Glom
2003-Apr-06, 01:13 PM
This is a very dusty thread. The website which was being discussed no longer exists. Clearly, the webmaster lost interest in it and allowed it to expire. One might suppose that his discussion with you lot in this thread changed his mind. If it is, well done. :D