Craig Lamson Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 The Apollo 11 photo you posted with the time lapse is very interesting .... and I believe even proves how phony it really is .. If you look at the ground before the astronauts stepped all over it , we see what appears ( on the surface anyway ) to be small craters in brown 'lunar' soil ... Yet after the astronauts have walked all over this area , we now get to see that what possibly could have been small craters in the lunar dirt , are now really nothing more than shallow holes which were dug on the moon set , posing as small craters ... If the holes were really craters , then the astronauts bootprints would not have obscured or even in some cases completely erased them in the way they have in this time lapse photo . Thank you Duane...I don't think I have laughed this hard for ages! Crater..small hole in the lunar surface...crater..small hole inthe lunar surface..ROFLMAO! And thanks for that wonderful dedscription on how an astronauts boot will react with a lunar crater. Your overwhelming experience in lunar soil mechanics leaves me speachless. Priceless! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 Jack ... I agree with you that the black material (thermal blanket ) in AS17-134-20482 looks highly unusual in all of the photos .... And no matter if the photo is low res or high, it still looks as though this image doesn't belong with the rest of the scene ... If I could see more of distance shot of this maybe it would not be so out of place or strange looking .... Do you have any of the photos where this black thermal blanket image is missing ? ... Or possibly more of a distance shot of this scene ? ... If so it would be easier to tell if this is an anomalous image or not . Here is a more distant shot. It is in deep shadow, but I cannot find the black patch in it. I will look for a better example. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted November 10, 2006 Author Share Posted November 10, 2006 Jack ... I agree with you that the black material (thermal blanket ) in AS17-134-20482 looks highly unusual in all of the photos .... And no matter if the photo is low res or high, it still looks as though this image doesn't belong with the rest of the scene ... If I could see more of distance shot of this maybe it would not be so out of place or strange looking .... Do you have any of the photos where this black thermal blanket image is missing ? ... Or possibly more of a distance shot of this scene ? ... If so it would be easier to tell if this is an anomalous image or not . Here is a more distant shot. It is in deep shadow, but I cannot find the black patch in it. I will look for a better example. Jack The'black patch' has - once again - already been answered: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...911&st=135# Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 Jack ... I agree with you that the black material (thermal blanket ) in AS17-134-20482 looks highly unusual in all of the photos .... And no matter if the photo is low res or high, it still looks as though this image doesn't belong with the rest of the scene ... If I could see more of distance shot of this maybe it would not be so out of place or strange looking .... Do you have any of the photos where this black thermal blanket image is missing ? ... Or possibly more of a distance shot of this scene ? ... If so it would be easier to tell if this is an anomalous image or not . Duane...is this good enough to settle the black patch anomaly? It is an extreme closeup of the area. NO BLACK PATCH, NO NAILS, NO "THERMAL BLANKET". Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted November 10, 2006 Author Share Posted November 10, 2006 And again - the 'light leakage' image has been discussed: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...5911&st=60# Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 Jack ... I agree with you that the black material (thermal blanket ) in AS17-134-20482 looks highly unusual in all of the photos .... And no matter if the photo is low res or high, it still looks as though this image doesn't belong with the rest of the scene ... If I could see more of distance shot of this maybe it would not be so out of place or strange looking .... Do you have any of the photos where this black thermal blanket image is missing ? ... Or possibly more of a distance shot of this scene ? ... If so it would be easier to tell if this is an anomalous image or not . Duane...is this good enough to settle the black patch anomaly? It is an extreme closeup of the area. NO BLACK PATCH, NO NAILS, NO "THERMAL BLANKET". Jack Here is still another different version of the black patch...but FLAT AND HANGING DOWN, in a different place. Were the astronauts making all these changes? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 Dave ... Yes, there are more bootprints in the color photo of the EVA3 Apollo 15 publicity photos , but there are not enough bootprints and dust to have completely covered the tire tracks that should still have been in front of the astronaut and LM in this second photo , taken at a later time (according to nasa )... The tire tracks in the photo behind the astronaut are irrelevant , as they are in both photos and prove nothing .... How do you know there are not enough boot prints? The dust kicked up not only covers the rover tracks, it also covers some of the other boot prints. Did you actually look at the quality of the pristine surface in the first photo (near the foreground tracks, but not disturbed), and compare it to the second surface? It is completely different. This shows how much dust has been kicked up. You seem to say a lot without really saying much of anything ... Or in other words , you have not proven your case or refuted Jack's evidence in any respect , except to show that these are two different photos , taken at two different times , which as I stated before actually hurts your case instead of helps it . Given this quote, I doubt you have actually looked at both hi-res images and properly followed what I have said, maybe that was down to deficiencies in how I explained it, but it does look quite clear to me when you take time to look at both photos, that there is far more disturbed dust in the second photo. There are many other images in the Apollo record which show tracks being obscured by bootprints and the dust kicked up by astronauts, and you only have to examine the TV footage to see how much is kicked up with a single step. (One thing I did forget to mention in my previous post, the field of view between the two pictures is slightly different - the second photo is framed in such a way that you couldn't see all of the tracks anyway) One of the things I find most annoying about different nasa defenders whom I have encountered online in the past couple of years , is that NONE of them will ever admit to being wrong about anything , even when it is quite obvious that they are .... Nor will any of them ever admit that any of the Apollo photos contain any anomalies , when they so obviously do .... And to my way of thinking , this is not being honest . Well, I don't believe I'm wrong about this. If you can prove to me that the tyre tracks can not have been covered over by astronaut bootprints, please do so. I've shown that the photos were taken during different EVAs, that the astronauts were working in that area between the EVAs, video footage of the actual scene showing plenty of evidence of astronaut activity, including dust being sprayed around with virtually every step. I also shows in the Apollo 11 time lapse foootage how much the landscape can change in just 70 minutes. All this is evidence - all you have shown are your beliefs. You are of course entitled to them. But your beliefs are not evidence of anything, so why should I admit to being wrong? I will not get into what has occurred between us on other forums where we have discussed Apollo before , but I will say that it is a waste of my time for me to prove you wrong about something, just for you to continue to come back with more erroneous information pretending that I haven't refuted your evidence . You have not presented any evidence to back up the claim that this area was "raked" between the photos! Just speculation and your beliefs. I have shown plenty of evidence, both photographic and video. The Apollo 11 photo you posted with the time lapse is very interesting .... and I believe even proves how phony it really is .. If you look at the ground before the astronauts stepped all over it , we see what appears ( on the surface anyway ) to be small craters in brown 'lunar' soil ... Yet after the astronauts have walked all over this area , we now get to see that what possibly could have been small craters in the lunar dirt , are now really nothing more than shallow holes which were dug on the moon set , posing as small craters ... If the holes were really craters , then the astronauts bootprints would not have obscured or even in some cases completely erased them in the way they have in this time lapse photo . What is a crater if it isn't a shallow hole??? Strange that you are admitting here that the astronaut activity has obscured or erased the craters, yet you laughingly dismiss any notion that quite shallow tyre tracks could be similarly obscured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 (edited) I showed the image I downloaded years ago. IT HAS MORE INFORMATION ON THETOP EDGE than the one now posted. I did not invent the extra area at the top; the new image crops it out. Do you deny that? Jack The text in the images you posted was misleading - they both say they are not cropped at the top, hence I didn't have a clue what message you were trying to get across. Yes the images are cropped slightly differently at the top edge. Presumably done at different times by different people? If you look at the hi-res scans from the film rolls, you can easily see why the images were cropped in the first place. Edited November 10, 2006 by Dave Greer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 (edited) Jack ... I agree with you that the black material (thermal blanket ) in AS17-134-20482 looks highly unusual in all of the photos .... And no matter if the photo is low res or high, it still looks as though this image doesn't belong with the rest of the scene ... If I could see more of distance shot of this maybe it would not be so out of place or strange looking .... Do you have any of the photos where this black thermal blanket image is missing ? ... Or possibly more of a distance shot of this scene ? ... If so it would be easier to tell if this is an anomalous image or not . Duane...is this good enough to settle the black patch anomaly? It is an extreme closeup of the area. NO BLACK PATCH, NO NAILS, NO "THERMAL BLANKET". Jack Could it be out of frame to the right perhaps? More shots from roll 140 (EVA 3) showing the black patch. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/as17-140-21370HR.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-140-21371HR.jpg I think your misunderstanding is coming from the different angles the piece of material is viewed from. It is not "stuck down flat" on top of the US decal - look at the high resolution version of the original images in this discussion. The material is protruding out from the body of the LM. From one angle, it partially covers the US decal. From another angle, it is edge-on - being back and in shadow it is obvioudly very hard to see. Edited November 10, 2006 by Dave Greer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 Dave ... I studied both of the Apollo 15 promo photos very carefully and there are no tire tracks in the second EVA3 color photo because there never were any , not because they were covered over by any bootprints... and the field of view is not different enough to not show the tracks ... Now you are just making it up as you go along . I certainly am not making anything up, the field of view IS slightly different between the two photos whether you choose to believe it or not. I think you're paying too much attention to the cropped versions supplied by Jack. The B&W image is this one AS15-92-12447HR.jpg The colour image is this one as15-88-11866HR.jpg It's plainly obvious that these two are framed differently. The colour photo is also taken slightly closer to the LM than in the B&W photo. The lowest 2 tracks wouldn't be visible in the colour photo, only the ones above it, closer to the flag. If you really can't see more bootprints and scuffed up dirt in the colour photo than in the black and white photo, then I can't really help you with this one and we'll just have to agree to disagree and move on. (Incidentally, I can see part of what looks the rover track in the colour photo. Look at the astronauts left had boot (from our view point). Then go to the edge of the photo - you can see there a small part of the track not obscured by dust or bootprints. It matches up to where it shows more clearly on the B&W photo.) The bootprints of the Apollo 11 astronauts didn't completely cover over the 'craters' because they were still there , even if obscured to a large extant ... The prints only made it obvious that they were not really moon craters at all , but only small holes dug on moon set pretending to be craters ... How do bootprints and scuffed up dirt partially obscuring craters prove that they are dug up holes rather than craters??? Have you had a look to see if the high res photo is available on the other photo in question showing the bank of stagelights at the top ? If not , I will try to track that one down tomorrow , as I would like to discuss that one also . I will when I get the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 Maybe Mr. Greer can explain this "lens flare" to Duane. It seems to be caused by six spotlights being aimed directly into the camera lens. Jack Now onto the next photo which I don't believe has been discussed yet .... From looking at the photo study that Jack has posted here , it does look as though there are a bank of stage lights at the very top center of this photo which are creating the appearance of "lens flare" ... I'm not sure where nasa was going with this one ... If indeed these turn out to be a bank of stage lights , what would have been their purpose in this particular photo ? .... The only light source on the moon would have been the sun , yet this light looks nothing like sunlight .... Perhaps after making a mistake with this one and letting it slip by quality control , nasa had to come up with the explanation of lens flare ? Without seeing the high resolution photo it is difficult to tell exactly what we are seeing here , but it does does appear to be a bank of stage lights causing this "lens flare" effect in this photo . I have just searched for this number AS15-89-12015 , on the Apollo Image Gallery but had no luck in finding it so far .... Maybe Dave can locate this one , as he is very good at finding elusive Apollo photos and I am not , as he knows from past experience . ( Alien bootprint !! ) If Dave or anyone else can either find the high res photo of this or let me know where I can find it , I would appreciate it very much . If you're still up for discussing this one Duane First off, I haven't been able to find a very high resolution online version of this picture, and I'm not sufficiently motivated to pay for a print! But we can work with what we've got. This is the first exposure on the film - and as can be seen on many first and last exposures (as well as some others), these frames sometimes suffer from light leaking into the cartridge and partially spoiling the film (I believe the term used is sunstrike). This sun-strike can manifest itself in various ways - here are some other examples. AS15-86-11530 AS12-49-7324 I hope that's a satisfactory explanation for the "glare" in the frame. As for the alleged "stage-lights" - well, we can be fairly sure they aren't stage-lights, since they aren't on the portion of the film that is exposed when a picture is taken. This can be verified by measuring the distance from the visble grid-lines on the reseau plate to the bottom edge of the frame, then working out where the top edge actually is (it's impossible to judge by eye, since the blackness of space isn't distinguishable from the unexposed portion of the film. Using the measure tool in photoshop is is fairly easy to do this, although I agree it would be more clear if we had higher resolution scans available. So, if the artefacts we see are not in the portion of film that is exposed, they can't be stage-lights... so what are they? I believe an explanation can be found in this photo... AS15-82-11214 It seems as if it may just be the sprocket holes on the edge of the film, used for winding it along. I realise the marks look different so am not 100% happy with this explanation, but they are definitely not part of the actual exposure, so whatever they are, there must be some benign explanation. Anyone have an explanation that better fits the available data? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 Maybe Mr. Greer can explain this "lens flare" to Duane. It seems to be caused by six spotlights being aimed directly into the camera lens. Jack Now onto the next photo which I don't believe has been discussed yet .... From looking at the photo study that Jack has posted here , it does look as though there are a bank of stage lights at the very top center of this photo which are creating the appearance of "lens flare" ... I'm not sure where nasa was going with this one ... If indeed these turn out to be a bank of stage lights , what would have been their purpose in this particular photo ? .... The only light source on the moon would have been the sun , yet this light looks nothing like sunlight .... Perhaps after making a mistake with this one and letting it slip by quality control , nasa had to come up with the explanation of lens flare ? Without seeing the high resolution photo it is difficult to tell exactly what we are seeing here , but it does does appear to be a bank of stage lights causing this "lens flare" effect in this photo . I have just searched for this number AS15-89-12015 , on the Apollo Image Gallery but had no luck in finding it so far .... Maybe Dave can locate this one , as he is very good at finding elusive Apollo photos and I am not , as he knows from past experience . ( Alien bootprint !! ) If Dave or anyone else can either find the high res photo of this or let me know where I can find it , I would appreciate it very much . If you're still up for discussing this one Duane First off, I haven't been able to find a very high resolution online version of this picture, and I'm not sufficiently motivated to pay for a print! But we can work with what we've got. This is the first exposure on the film - and as can be seen on many first and last exposures (as well as some others), these frames sometimes suffer from light leaking into the cartridge and partially spoiling the film (I believe the term used is sunstrike). This sun-strike can manifest itself in various ways - here are some other examples. AS15-86-11530 AS12-49-7324 I hope that's a satisfactory explanation for the "glare" in the frame. As for the alleged "stage-lights" - well, we can be fairly sure they aren't stage-lights, since they aren't on the portion of the film that is exposed when a picture is taken. This can be verified by measuring the distance from the visble grid-lines on the reseau plate to the bottom edge of the frame, then working out where the top edge actually is (it's impossible to judge by eye, since the blackness of space isn't distinguishable from the unexposed portion of the film. Using the measure tool in photoshop is is fairly easy to do this, although I agree it would be more clear if we had higher resolution scans available. So, if the artefacts we see are not in the portion of film that is exposed, they can't be stage-lights... so what are they? I believe an explanation can be found in this photo... AS15-82-11214 It seems as if it may just be the sprocket holes on the edge of the film, used for winding it along. I realise the marks look different so am not 100% happy with this explanation, but they are definitely not part of the actual exposure, so whatever they are, there must be some benign explanation. Anyone have an explanation that better fits the available data? Dave, if you look at the alleged "stage lights" they are not actually spots but rather lines and loops. In other words they look like writing, or at least the very bottom of writing that has been cut off in the scanning process. Why writing you might ask. I suggest it is the method of adding identification markings to the roll of film. This is a very common practice and is usually done in the septum (blank area between frames) with a very fine pen. The standard instrument for this job would be a technical pen such as a Rapidograph pen. On a black and white negative such as the one in question , the black ink from the pen on the clear septum of the negative would produce a black background with white lettering when printed. I think what we might be seeing is the mission and roll number AS 15 89 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 Dave, if you look at the alleged "stage lights" they are not actually spots but rather lines and loops. In other words they look like writing, or at least the very bottom of writing that has been cut off in the scanning process.Why writing you might ask. I suggest it is the method of adding identification markings to the roll of film. This is a very common practice and is usually done in the septum (blank area between frames) with a very fine pen. The standard instrument for this job would be a technical pen such as a Rapidograph pen. On a black and white negative such as the one in question , the black ink from the pen on the clear septum of the negative would produce a black background with white lettering when printed. I think what we might be seeing is the mission and roll number AS 15 89 Craig Thanks for that, a much more satisfactory answer than either stagelights or sprocket marks (duh!) Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted November 14, 2006 Author Share Posted November 14, 2006 And as per usual, Jack's silence says it all. He knows he wrong, he knows he can't support his claims, so he ignores the answers. He doesn't withdraw the claims, he just waits a while then makes them all over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 And as per usual, Jack's silence says it all. He knows he wrong, he knows he can't support his claims, so he ignores the answers. He doesn't withdraw the claims, he just waits a while then makes them all over again. It is unfortunate that he can't either defend his claims, or withdraw them. Duane had the moral courage to withdraw his claim about the stage-lights in visors when given conclusive evidence that they were scratches. Jack would have earned some respect if he had done the same - not just recently on this board, but on various forums over the years. Of course, he would eventually be left with little or no evidence to support his claims, so as you say it's a lot easier for him to do "bombing runs" then leave, refusing to sensibly discuss his claims. If you're reading this Jack, this is not an ad hom - there is a thread on apollohoax.net where I actually support part of your analysis, just not the conclusion you are leading people to. The 3 page thread starts here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now