Anomalous object in A17 moonscape

[Dave Greer]

The tracks in the crater " theroy" ? .... Are you completley blind ? ... The moon buggy tracks go right though the middle of the crater , which of course would have been completely impossible had the buggy really done that in 1/6 g. on the moon .... and for anyone who is not wearing pro Apollo blinders , it is obvious that the shadow in no way matches the object allegedly causing it .

Of course one of the tracks goes through the crater. What you've failed to do is show why that is impossible for the buggy to do. How deep is the crater? What is the buggy ground clearance? How fast was it going?

The shadow is completely congruous with the object casting it - you still can't or won't supply any evidence supporting your claim. How about that?

The A15 Scott photo is a complete fake , so don't lecture me about having my head in the sand about this .. It's quite a clever game that you and your friends play on these forums , trying to constanly turn the tables with your psychological projection .... The only one who can't see the truth about Apollo would be you and the one's who defend the crudely faked Apollo photographs .

If it's so obvious to you that it's a fake, it should be very easy for you to provide proof. You fail to do so.

I don't give a rip where your friend got the miniture Apollo astronot ... The only thing that he proved with his ridiculous experiment is that he either altered the shadow to try to match the original phony photo, or the original phony photo was taken using a small scale astronot model on a moon set with artificial lighting .

Nope - he proved that the shadow is just as you would expect . You could always prove this to yourself. But that would mean admitting that there is nothing wrong with the shadow. Catch 22?

I have known for quite some time now that you will do whatever it takes to 'win' the argument ... Including running to your pro Apollo , think tank friends for help when you can't prove your side of the argument .

That's because all the arguments are winnable - because NASA landed 12 men on the moon 1969-1972. At least, that's what the evidence supports. You don't win any arguments, because you have no relevant facts to support your case.

Oh, I didn't approach Pericynthion, he PMed me with his photos.

Oh , and speaking of clever games ... I contacted the YouTube management to find out why I can no longer post comments on their web site ... I received their answer this morning ... Apparently a member of that site hit the spam feature repeatedly on my comments , to where my account went into their spam filter and stopped my ability to post comments there ... Funny how I didn't have any problems with anything on that forum until you showed up , isn't it ?

Please leave the Youtube stuff on Youtube or discuss via PM as requested. (Yet again, you've got the wrong man. Don't consider joining the Mounties.)

[Duane Daman]

All your friend proved with his silly experiment is that he is as good at faking photos as nasa is... Like , not very .

If all your pro Apollo arguments were "winnable" , then you wouldn't still be debating this subject with conspiracy researchers ...

I might not be able to post comments on that other site at the moment , but I can still read the comments .. and from what I've seen recently , you are losing the arguments , bigtime ... I guess you haven't receiced any PM's yet from your think tank buddies as how to try to refute them ?

My favorites so far , that you have no answers for , is why was the Apollo 11 flag facing the opposite direction in the pan accross the lunar surface footage ? ... How did it get moved , since Neal and Buzz never went anywhere near it again ?

I also like the one about why were the Apollo 11 lunar landing videos dated July 7th and 11th , when that footage of the boys landing on the moon was allegedly being filmed on July 20th ? ... It's called SIMULATION , in case you were wondering what the correct answer is .

Got the wrong guy do I ? ... You are the one who accused me of "SPAMMING the boards with lies about you " , and the day after you made that accusation , I could no longer post comments because of them being sent through a SPAM filter ... Coinicidence ? ... I doubt it .

Edited May 1, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Kevin M. West]

If the flag thing is your 'favorite so far' why not start a thread and tell us which pan you're talking about.

Same for whatever landing footage you're talking about.

[Dave Greer]

All your friend proved with his silly experiment is that he is as good at faking photos as nasa is... Like , not very .

Pericynthion has since sent me a link to a short Youtube video showing the exact same scene, with the camera position changing slowly from that of the Apollo 17 photo to an overhead view.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYnDw6Ytvgg

So, was this simple video faked as well? The sad thing in all this Duane, is that you can prove it to yourself if you really wanted to.

Got the wrong guy do I ? ... You are the one who accused me of "SPAMMING the boards with lies about you " , and the day after you made that accusation , I could no longer post comments because of them being sent through a SPAM filter ... Coinicidence ? ... I doubt it .

Whoever sent your comments through the spam filter had every right to do so, since what you posted was effectively spam. If it was me, I'd quite happily tell you to your face. However, it wasn't. If you want to continue to argue the point, PM me please.

Back to that shadow. Why don't you describe/draw how it SHOULD look since it is so obviously wrong to you?

[Duane Daman]

Okay , I proved it to myself .... I went outside this morning in the bright sunlight with my backpack ( which is approximately the same size of the astronot's PLSS ) strapped to my back ... Then I leaned forward in the same position as that of the astronot in the A15 photo ... and guess what ?!?

MY SHADOW MATCHED MY FORWARD POSITION EXACTLY ! .... My shadow leaned over at the same exact angle I did and it showed my backpack to be on my back , not my stomach !

So your friends 'proof' has only proven one thing ... Either he messed with the shadow image in his photo study in an attempt to have it match the bogus A15 shadow ( which he has now made into a YouTube video ) or he has proven that the anomalous shadow in the A15 shadow was not really caused by a real astronot standing in the bright sunlight on the moon , but was caused by a minature astronot manikin standing on a moonset , using an artificial light source , like a big , bright SPOTLIGHT !

The same type of spotlight that shows up very clearly in this reflection of Gene Cernan's visor in the A17 photo shoot .

You're the only one who would consider my post comments on YouTube to be spam and even posted as much .

Speaking of YouTube ... Did you seen Jarrah's new video yet ? ... It cleared up all those 'misunderstandings' between your photo 'evidence ' , and Jarrah's evidence which proved that the A17 photo is a fake .

[Dave Greer]

Okay , I proved it to myself .... I went outside this morning in the bright sunlight with my backpack ( which is approximately the same size of the astronot's PLSS ) strapped to my back ... Then I leaned forward in the same position as that of the astronot in the A15 photo ... and guess what ?!?

MY SHADOW MATCHED MY FORWARD POSITION EXACTLY ! .... My shadow leaned over at the same exact angle I did and it showed my backpack to be on my back , not my stomach !

Complete buffoonery does not help your case. You need to get someone to take a photo from a similar position to where the Apollo photo was taken from - NOT just glance to your side. This is not rocket science - the tuna sandwich I had for supper would have realised this.

Do it again, then post the photograph here.

So your friends 'proof' has only proven one thing ... Either he messed with the shadow image in his photo study in an attempt to have it match the bogus A15 shadow ( which he has now made into a YouTube video ) or he has proven that the anomalous shadow in the A15 shadow was not really caused by a real astronot standing in the bright sunlight on the moon , but was caused by a minature astronot manikin standing on a moonset , using an artificial light source , like a big , bright SPOTLIGHT !

Wrong I'm afraid. It's already been explained to you.

You're the only one who would consider my post comments on YouTube to be spam and even posted as much .

Wrong again. Someone else was obviously bored with you copying and pasting the same comment onto 10 or 12 different comments boards, and flagged it up as spam. You could have prevented him doing this by not spamming of course.

Speaking of YouTube ... Did you seen Jarrah's new video yet ? ... It cleared up all those 'misunderstandings' between your photo 'evidence ' , and Jarrah's evidence which proved that the A17 photo is a fake .

Hurrah! Fame at last! I have my own dedicated video on Youtube.

Problem is of course, I'm going to have to waste several hours of my OWN time proving Jarrah wrong point by point. And here's me thinking I could finish tiling the kitchen, take my daughter to visit my sister this weekend, then round it all off enjoying a night of poker at a friend's house.

Those things are way more important than "de-bunking Jarrah", so forgive me if it takes a few weeks to trash this junk.

And trashed it will be. Sliced, diced and spliced. Stay tuned

[Duane Daman]

Well I sure am glad to hear that you have some kind of social life Dave ... I was beginning to think that the only thing you ever did was to obsess about the imaginary Apollo moon landings and how to defuse the hoax evidence by any means possible ... LOL

Speakimg of buffoonery , you sure have posted quite a bit of that on YouTube lately ... Jarrah merely defended his reputation againt the untruthful things you were saying about him and your contact information with his photo analysis source , Jenny Heller .... Seems like her story didn't quite match yours ... Imagine that ?

It also seems that your little picture on the beach , which you have now also displayed on other forums , is not quite what you cracked it up to be ... Something about using a wide angle lens to get 90 degree shadows , all the while knowing that the Apollo Hasslebald cameras didn't have the same type of lens you used , and therefore could in no way have taken that photo with the 90 degree shadows ... Or that really cute double shadow either , for that matter ... I do believe only a secondary light source would have created that little faux pau ..

Oh , and good news too Dave .. No one "got bored " with my comments about you ... Apparently my comments were sent into a spam filter for posting URL's ... So I guess you didn't hit that spam feature after all ... You see , I DO admit it when I'm wrong .

Speaking of being wrong , that would seem to be your problem lately ... I'm NOT wrong about my shadow and the sun ... Try the experiment yourself if you don't believe me ... Go outside on a sunny day , bend over and look at your shadow to see what it does ... It will do exactly the same thing mine did ... MATCH your position !

But if you think you can duplicate your friend's experiment out in sunlight , then strap on a backpack , lean forward and snap a photo with that little wide angle lens digital camera of yours, to see if you can duplicate the A15 Scott shadow ... After all , you 'duplicated' the A17 90 degree shadow photo right ? ... So do it with this one too ... I would really like to see you get a shadow to match the one your friend got using his astronot doll and an artificial light source !! ... Like what was used for the A15 Apollo photo .

As far as the photos I posted here of the visor reflections , I'm so thankful that you didn't make that ridiculous claim again that it was a "smudge" on the visor ... That is so absurd it's laughable ... Like so many of your claims are .

And speaking of sliced and diced ... Jarrah did a fine job of carving up you with your false information about Jenny recanting her opinion , and your silly beach photo, taken with a lens NOT used by the Apollo astronots .

Since you're so pleased that he made a video dedicated just to you , then here it is for everyone to enjoy .. I promised to post the evidence here which would destroy your photo rebuttal and also your alleged correspondence with Jarrah's source .

I know you're already seen the show .. but thought you might like to share it with your friends here ..

So who exactly sliced and diced whom ? .. You better believe I will stay tuned ... I love watching tap dancing , spinning plates and rabbits appearing out of thin air !! LOL

Apollo XVII Teachers and Cameras Part 1 .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gu6n8xxJ-vk...ted&search=

Apollo XVII Teachers and Cameras Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ra9NJqPqH04

Edited May 4, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Evan Burton]

GENTLEMEN!

Discussion about what happened on YouTube or elsewhere is not relevant to this discussion.

Discuss such matters via PM or off this board. First and final warning!

Duane,

1. Let me make sure I understand your position with absolute clarity: you claim that the images produced by Pericynthion and passed to Dave regarding the Apollo 15 shadow are faked? That it is not a true representation of the given conditions?

2. I'd encourage you to post your own photographic evidence here on the board. I'd request that you show the setup (e.g. what light angle, simulated equipment the subject wore, etc). If it is indeed as you say, then we can probably arrange a more accurate recreation of the event in order to determine what is actually happening.

[Evan Burton]

Clarification:

Discussion about whether the correct lens was used in an illustrative photograph is quite relevant to this discussion, and so I have no problems about that. Talk of disputed e-mails or similar is not.

[Evan Burton]

The difference in lenses is an interesting point. I'd suggest we:

1. Determine what lenses were used in each case (Apollo, Dave, Duane); and

2. Determine if any differences would appreciably alter the resultant images with respect to the shadows.

[Dave Greer]

The difference in lenses is an interesting point. I'd suggest we:

1. Determine what lenses were used in each case (Apollo, Dave, Duane); and

2. Determine if any differences would appreciably alter the resultant images with respect to the shadows.

It is indeed interesting. Jarrah claims on his video that I've been deceptive by using an F10 camera since it has a lens with a 24mm focal length, but the Apollo photo was taken using a 60mm lens. He states that all his photography was done using a camera with a 57mm lens which is comparable to the lens used on the Apollo photo.

Firstly, here are links to the photos being discussed.

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r81/hea...ck/shadow01.jpg

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-136-20744.jpg

Jarrah claims that his camera will have a very similar field of view to the Apollo photos, but that mine is almost three times as wide since my camera has a focal length of 24mm. He reassures the viewer that he is a trained and experienced photographer - thus we are led to believe that he knows what he is talking about.

On the face of it this sounds like a reasonable proposition - the focal length of a camera DOES help determine the field of view. We're all familiar with sports photographers and Paparazzi having cameras with huge lenses (which presumably have very long focal lengths), used for getting those close-up shots from far away - i.e. they are telephoto lenses.

Unfortunately, Jarrah has made the mistake of assuming that the field of view of a camera is solely dependent on the focal length of the lens. This is wrong - the focal length is just one factor. The other major factor is the film format being used, or in the case of digital photography, the image sensor type and size.

The discussion can get quite technical, so I've put the number-crunching (quantitative) explanation in a quote box below for anyone who wants to check this out more accurately. The next section will be a qualitative explanation.

NOTE: it is very easy to confuse camera terminology. A camera is often referred to as a 35mm camera - the 35mm refers to the film format being used (the width of the film is 35mm). This could then have several different types of lens attached, each with differing focal lengths, for example f=50mm which refers to the focal length of the lens. So, it's quite possible to have a 35mm camera fitted with a 50mm lens.

CAMERAS AND FOCAL LENGTHS

My camera is a Fuji Finepix F10, which has a focal length of 8-24mm. In other words, at maximum optical zoom the focal length would be 24mm (this is the setting with the narrowest field of view). At it's widest setting, the focal length is 8mm (this is the setting with the widest field of view).

I've hunted out the original image rather than the one I first posted (which had the colour information removed and contrast enhanced to make the shadows clearer). The camera records the properties of each picture each time a photo is taken, including the focal length. The focal length used for this photo was actually 18mm (I initially stated incorrectly there was no zoom on this photo: fortunately it actually helps my case, since it reduces the field of view, making it more telephoto than wide-angle. The reason for the mix-up is that I also took a photo of the scene with the focal length set to 8mm. I'll post both images for comparison later, since I don't want to be accused of being deceptive!)

So, Fuji focal length used was f = 18mm.

The Hasselblad lens used was f = 60mm. (Jarrah agrees with this figure and it can easily be confirmed).

NOTE: this does NOT mean that my photo had a field of view 60/18 = approx 3 times wider than the Apollo photo. We need to factor in the film format. The film format used in the Hasselblads was a medium format film called 70mm, or 6x6 film. The Fuji F10 has an image sensor of size 1/1.7" (this is on the camera datasheet).

The easiest way to look at this is to consider what a "normal" lens is for each film format (or CCD size). A focal length higher than the "normal" is more telephoto - a focal length lower than the "normal" is more wide-angle. This is a basic rule of thumb to give us an easily grasped idea of what is happening.

From the wiki article -

In still photography, a normal lens is a lens whose focal length is roughly equivalent to the diagonal of the image projected within the camera.

Lenses of shorter focal length are called wide-angle lenses, while longer focal length lenses are called telephoto lenses.

From the same Wiki article referenced above, a normal lens for a camera using 70mm film (6x6) i.e. Apollo Hassy has f=80mm.

Since the Hassy lens used was 60mm, this is slightly wide-angle, as it is less than the normal lens size.

From the same Wiki article referenced above, a normal lens for a digital camera with a 1/1.7" sensor i.e. Fuji F10 has f=9.5mm.

(The sensor size can be confirmed by looking at the datasheet for the Fuji F10

Since the Fuji lens setting used was 18mm, this setting is quite telephoto, since it is appreciably higher than the normal lens size FOR THIS CAMERA. Note - with the camera setting on f=8mm, this becomes slightly wide-angle, and actually quite similar to the Apollo camera.

INITIAL CONCLUSION

Far from my Fuji F10 having a field of view three times higher than that of the Hasselblad with a 60mm lens (as Jarrah would have you believe), with the setting used the field of view is noticeably smaller than the Apollo 17 photo.

There is a more accurate and technical description below.

Often, a cameras focal length is quoted as the "35mm equivalent", since 35mm film is a very common standard, and this gives a simple way to compare the features of different cameras.

Looking at the datasheet for the Fuji F10, Focal Length (35mm equivalent) is 36 - 108 mm - so for a focal length setting of 18mm (my photo), the 35mm equivalent is 18 x (36/8) = 81mm.

Now we need to figure out what the "35mm equivalent focal length" is for the Hasselblad fitted with a 60mm lens, using 70mm film. This is where things start getting complicated. The medium format film used in a Hasselblad has an aspect ratio of 1:1 (the image size is 59mmx59mm). The aspect ratio of 35mm film is 3:2 (36mmx24mm). Since the aspect ratios are different, there are two ways of comparing the formats - either the diagonals or the horizontals.

If we compare the horizontals, we have (36/59) = 0.61. This is a multiplication factor for the focal length (35mm equivalent). So, the focal length (35mm equivalent) of a 60mm Hasselblad lens = (36/59) * 60 = 37mm.

If we compare the diagonals, the Hasselblad film diagonal is 83mm. The 35mm film diagonal is 43mm. This time the multiplication factor is (43/83) = 0.52. So, the focal length (35mm equivalent) of a 60mm Hasselblad lens = (43/83) * 60 = 31mm.

Sorry for all the number crunching (and I would invite other members with photographic experience to check my logic and working out here), but this leaves us with a good guesstimate for the 35mm equivalent focal length of a 60mm lens fitted on an Apollo Hasselblad 500 medium format camera, in the range 31-37mm. This is considering slightly wide angle (a normal lens on a 35mm camera would be 50mm - higher than 50mm is approaching telephoto, lower than is approaching wide-angle).

To summarise -

The 35mm equivalent of the lens setting I used to take the beach photo = 81mm (this is on the telephoto side of normal).

The 35mm equivalent of the 60mm lens on the Apollo Hassy = 31-37mm (this is on the wideangle side of normal).

CONCLUSION

Rather than my photo having a FOV approx 3 times that of the Apollo photo, the Apollo FOV is actually more than twice that in my beach photo. Hence, I was not being deceptive by using wide-angle lens.

EDIT Changed 2 incorrect references to Hasselblad film format from 75mm to 70mm.

Edited May 9, 2007 by Dave Greer

[Dave Greer]

Just to clear up any conclusion over focal lengths used in the previous discussion... here is the image I incorrectly stated was not zoomed, ie Fuji F10 focal length = 8mm. The focal length is actually 18mm. Apologies if this caused any confusion.

Here is the original of theat image with no processing.

And just so you can see the image properties, confirming the focal length...

Now compare this to the photo which was taken at widest possible angle, ie f=8mm. Sun angle 15-18 degrees.

And the Apollo 17 photo in question. Sun angle 15-19 degrees.

[Craig Lamson]

Good grief Duane, you will believe ANYTHING that fits your worldview regardless of the truth. Jarrah White is totally ignorant of how lenses work and it would seem you are as well.

Try this on for size and se it your "photo expert" Jarrah can deal with it. The answer of course is that he cannot.

58mm SUPER-ANGULON XL 5.6 lens...angle of view 110 degrees

http://www.schneideroptics.com/ecommerce/C...68&IID=1839

60mm Hasselblad lens...angle of view 50 degrees

http://www.adorama.com/HS6035CFI.html

Canon 60mm lens...angle of view 25 degrees

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controll...p;modelid=11156

Crushed again by the truth! LOL!

[Craig Lamson]

And just what agency supplies this guy with expensive fullsize models

of astronauts to take photos of? Looks to me like the same "astronaut"

manikin used for the Apollo photography. How does a non-nasa photographer

get one of these expensive manikins?

Jack

Very astute photo analysis there Jack! Never mind the fact that the post indicated the model was 1/6 scale, you posit that it is "fullsize". Wow if that model is "fullsized" is the door "SUPERSIZED" ROFLMAO!

[Duane Daman]

GENTLEMEN!

Discussion about what happened on YouTube or elsewhere is not relevant to this discussion.

Discuss such matters via PM or off this board. First and final warning!

Duane,

1. Let me make sure I understand your position with absolute clarity: you claim that the images produced by Pericynthion and passed to Dave regarding the Apollo 15 shadow are faked? That it is not a true representation of the given conditions?

2. I'd encourage you to post your own photographic evidence here on the board. I'd request that you show the setup (e.g. what light angle, simulated equipment the subject wore, etc). If it is indeed as you say, then we can probably arrange a more accurate recreation of the event in order to determine what is actually happening.

My position is this ..

1. A friend of Dave's tried to bail him put of a jam concerning the A15 anomalous shadow discussion , which Dave was losing ... So to get the shadow to match the phony Apollo photo , he recreated the scene by using a small astronot doll and close up artificial lighting .

2. His shadow experiment came very close to the shadow in the A15 photo because nasa obviously created their photo by the same means .. They used a small scale astronot manikin on a moon set, with close up artificial lighting .

3. I don't need to make any photos of me standing in the sun because all anyone has to do is go outside on a sunny day , lean forward on any terrain they choose , and they will see that their shadow MATCHES their position .

Conclusion ... The experiment proved that nasa used a small scale moon set and an astronot manikin , with a close up artificial light source ... and that is the reason the shadow in the A15 photo matched the experiment ..

In other words , the experiment blew up in both of their faces because it proved my point instead of theirs .. which is ; The whistleblower A15 photo is a fake .

Oh , nice tap dancing Dave ... I do believe this would be one of your best performances yet .

I will very much enjoy watching Jarrah slice and dice your new dance into little tiny pieces .