Jack White's Aulis "Apollo Hoax" Investigation - A Rebuttal

[Evan Burton]

APOLLO 15 - COLOR OR BLACK/WHITE?

This is easy to answer - if you do some research.

AS15-92-12451 (the B&W image) was taken at 148 hrs 57 mins.

148:56:51 Irwin: Yeah. (Pause) Okay, I'm taking you again, boss.

148:56:56 Scott: Okay.

[The TV image brightens as Dave salutes.]

148:56:58 Irwin: Oh, you look colorful.

148:56:59 Scott: How about that? Even with the dirt, huh? (Pause)

148:57:05 Irwin: Okay.

[Dave hops off camera to the left.]

[Jim took four pictures of Dave, AS15-92- 12448 to 12451. Frame 12451 is the best of these. Note the footprints and Rover tracks in the crater to Dave's right. This is the last surface picture on magazine 92. The remainder of the magazine was used in orbit.]

148:57:07 Scott: You like that flag there, Joe?

148:57:10 Allen: It's beautiful.

148:57:15 Scott: Yeah. We think it's pretty nice, too. (Long Pause)

The colour image, AS15-88-11863, was taken at 163 hrs 58 mins, 15 hours later.

163:58:27 Scott: I know it! (Long Pause)

[before taking Dave's picture, Jim takes two photos of the Rover. In AS15-88-11861, Jim is using his scoop to get his camera at the proper distance from the side of the Rover console for a close-up of a sign affixed to it. Note the SCB on the floor boards on the left and the footrests on the right. An enhanced detail of the area covered by the shadow of Jim's helmet shows Dave's camera with the label "CDR". For 11862, Jim has raised his aim to get a photo of the sign, which reads "Man's First Wheels on the Moon, Delivered by Falcon, July 30, 1971." The signatures of the three crewmembers are at the bottom. In the background, we can see Dave's RCU and, on the top of it, the small warning-flag windows and the large Mode switch. He is not wearing his camera. Note the "Red Apple", below the RCU, with which he would open his purge valve in the case of an emergency requiring use of the OPS. As note by Journal Contributor John 'Eagle-Eye' Pfannerstill, Dave affixed the sign at 163:42:00. Pfannerstill also notes that, by the time we get our next good view of the righthand side of the console, when Dave and Jim reach Station 9a at Hadley Rille, the sign has fallen off.]

[Jim bounds into view, using an easy, loping stride. Fendell stops the pan to watch Jim take a picture of Dave, 11863. Compare the appearance of Silver Spur at the upper left with its appearance in AS15-87- 11748, which is a frame from Dave's SEVA color pan taken at 106:58:27.]

So, no, there are no "whistleblowers" at work here. It's all quite simple if you do your homework.

Edited February 26, 2006 by Evan Burton

[Evan Burton]

SAME BACKDROP - DIFFERENT SCENE

Same mistake Jack makes over and over and over.

AS15-82-11057 was taken from some distance west of the LM, looking southeast. (Look at a larger copy of the image, and you can see the LM porch and ladder - the west side)

AS15-88-11863 was taken close to the north of the LM, looking south-southeast.

The 'hills' are over 4km in the distance.

[Evan Burton]

WHOSE FOOTPRINT IS THIS?

This is another one where I have no real idea what point Jack is trying to make. That there are bootprints in the soil? Your guess is as good as mine.

The image is probably AS15-86-11671, the stereo companion to AS15-86-11670.

The bootprints are from Jim or Dave - I don't know which; perhaps both.

The device in the image is called a gnomon. A gnomon is a rod mounted on a tripod in such a way that it is free to swing in any direction and indicates the local vertical; it gives Sun position and serves as size scale. Color and reflectance scales are provided on the rod and a colorimetric reference is mounted on one leg.

The rock in the image was called the Genesis Rock, and was probably the most famous of all the lunar samples collected. The sample was 4.5 billion years old according to geologists.

ALSJ:

145:41:19 Scott: Get that unusual one. (Pause) Here's some dense...And there's another unusual one; look at the little crater here, and the one that's facing us. There is a little white corner to the thing.

145:41:34 Allen: Okay, Dave. Get as many of those as you can, and you might be watching for a place where you think the rake might help you.

145:41:43 Scott: Yeah. I think we can probably do a rake here, Joe.

145:41:47 Allen: Okay, sounds like a good place....

145:41:48 Scott: Okay, there's a big boulder over there down-Sun of us, that I'm sure you can see, Joe, which is gray. And it has some very outstanding gray clasts and white clasts, and oh, boy, it's a beaut! We're going to get ahold of that one in a minute.

145:42:07 Irwin: Okay, I have my pictures, Dave.

[The sample with the "white corner on the thing" is one of the best known of all Apollo samples, 15415, a 269 gram piece of pure anorthosite. Reporters covering the mission almost immediately named it the Genesis Rock. Interestingly, it was sitting up off the surface on a pedestal of soil. Readers should note that, during the drive back to the LM on EVA-1 at 123:56:52, Dave noticed another rock on a pedestal.]

[Jim's down-Sun "before" pictures are AS15-90- 12227 and 12228. In 12227, Dave is standing quite close to the gnomon. Although the pedestal is a little washed out in this picture, the Genesis Rock, the white object, is quite obvious. Jim moved several steps to his right to take 228, which shows Dave holding the tongs in his left hand. The Station 7 boulder is in the background.]

[Dave's cross-Sun "befores" are AS15-86- 11670 and 11671. David Harland has assembled a mosaic of Genesis Rock "befores" and "afters".]

[Evan Burton]

ONE OR TWO APOLLO 15 CRATERS?

This is an example where I can believe that Jack has genuinely made a mistake. The images to appear to confirm what he has said. It took a careful study of the images on the sequences to work out what has happened.

These images are both from Station 2 pan sequences.

AS15-85-11428 was taken first at 122 hrs 38 mins. It's known as the Station 2 first pan sequence.

AS15-85-11454 was taken later at 123 hrs 17 mins. It's known as the Station 2 second pan sequence.

The reason the crater "disappears" in 11454 is that Jim is standing on the rim of that crater for the first pan sequence, but has moved further away for the second pan sequence. In AS15-85-11454, the crater in the foreground of 11428 is hidden by a rise in the terrain (or should that be lunain? Seleain?).

WARNING! You should CAREFULLY examine not only the images mentioned above (hi resolution versions), but also hi resolution images both prior to and after the above images. Also read the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal about the astronaut activities at the time to place the images in context.

If you look at the crop I have done below of AS15-85-11428, you'll see I have marked some objects in order to give you some idea of orientation within the image.

AS15-85-11428 (hi resolution, cropped, enlarged to 150% of original, annotated)

Now look at the crop of AS15-85-11454. The same objects are labelled. I have also labelled, with a row of arrows, the crest of the crater lip / lunar dune. It is this crest that is preventing us from seeing the crater that was previously in the foreground. The crater is behind this crest and out of view.

AS15-85-11454 (hi resolution, cropped, enlarged to 150% of original, annotated)

In this next image (AS15-85-11454), you can see the bootprints where the previous image (AS15-85-11428) was taken from.

AS15-85-11454 (reduced to 60% of original, annotated)

This is a very good example of things that may not always be as they seem. A black & white photograph of lunar terrain with little or no contrast between similarly coloured and featured surfaces means a major feature can appear to disappear!

[Evan Burton]

JUST A COINCIDENCE, OR..?

Yep. It's a coincidence. The LMs are different. The horizons are different. Even the Aulis editor admits that.

The Apollo 15 image is AS15-88-11928.

The Apollo 16 image is AS16-116-18723.

Here's AS15-88-11928:

Now's here is a similar view from Apollo 16. It's AS16-116-18716:

Apart from both being on plains, the distant horizon is different. You'll also note that there is a crater in the foreground of AS16-116-18716, beyond the LRV and just before the LM.

[Evan Burton]

DRIVING ON THE MOON - YOU GOTTA BE A BAD MOONBUGGY DRIVER IF YOU CAN'T MISS A POTHOLE LIKE THIS

The images, which Jack hasn't labeled again, are part of a pan sequence taken at Geology Station 2 at 122 hrs 38 mins during EVA-1.

There are a few versions of the pan sequence available from the ALSJ, but a nice one is:

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15pan1223653mc.jpg

The images that really concern us are AS15-85-11435, 436, and 437.

High resolution versions of those images are available through The Project Apollo Image Gallery.

Before we look at the images, ask yourself: why set up this particular scene?

Jack would have you believe that the LRV never actually drove over the crater rim because it would have overturned.

In that case, the LRV was placed on the "set" and tracks were made leading to it. If you were supervising a "hoax", wouldn't this seem a little strange to you? Why not just drive the LRV onto the "set" around the crater, not through it? Why go to all the bother of lowering it onto the "set"?

It just doesn't make sense. The reason it doesn't make sense is because it was not done that way; the LRV drove to Station 2 exactly as recorded, and yes they did drive through the rim of that crater.

Now, let's have a look at those images. Remember to download the hi-res images yourself, and confirm what I am showing you.

Let's have a look at AS15-85-11435

AS15-85-11435 (hi resolution, cropped, reduced to 40% of original size, annotated)

You can see with the tracks in the foreground how Dave Scott actually tried to drive to the right of the crater. The left wheels actually went along the inside edge of the crater rim, not straight through the middle of it.

Here's an excert from the ALSJ for that time:

122:34:12 Scott: Hey, we could get to that fresh one, too, Jim. Hang on. Hang on. Digging in. (Pause) Okay. Boy, this'll give them a view. Oh my!

122:34:33 Irwin: Yeah, look that...What a view back into the rille.

122:34:35 Scott: Ohhh! There's almost a view right into that crater.

122:34:40 Irwin: Glad you stopped short of it.

122:34:41 Scott: (Laughs)

122:34:42 Irwin: Let's stop here.

122:34:43 Scott: Huh?

122:34:44 Irwin: Let's stop here?

122:34:45 Scott: I got to go down-Sun just a minute. I want to back up just a tad. (Pause) Okay; as far as we can...(Pause)

122:34:55 Allen: And, Jim, as you look back, can you see the Rover tracks?

122:35:02 Irwin: Oh, standby...

122:35:04 Scott: Yeah, we could, Joe. I saw them when we stopped at the last stop.

122:35:08 Allen: Okay; good. (Pause) Sounds like the old Hansel and Gretel trick'll work.

122:35:16 Scott: Yeah, man. (Pause) Okay. We're there, Jim; you can get off. You can try and get off. (Pause)

122:35:27 Irwin: Made it.

Also, the LRV wheels were 23cm wide. Look at the tracks and you can make a rough estimate of how deep the crater is.

Finally, the LRV had a ground clearance of 36cm.

So okay, it may not have been the most impressive driving of all time - but it did happen.

[Evan Burton]

COMPUTER REVEALS CRUDE RETOUCHING OF APOLLO 16 LEM

This is where I ALMOST agree with Jack - almost.

If you look at the high resolution image of AS16-118-18894, you can indeed see (even without Photoshop) that the image has been "retouched".

That's the point on which I agree with Jack.

The motive, however, I disagree. In my opinion, the image has simply been 'cleaned up' to make it a better image. The background is all black space, so they have removed any imperfections in the image - NOT removed eveidence of a hoax.

Have a look at the low resolution image of AS16-118-18894 from the same site. This is a smaller version that has NOT be 'retouched'.

Also have a look at the version from The Apollo Image Atlas. This version has been, as the good people from the Apollo Image Atlas warn, heavily processed and should not be used for research purposes.

You can see the dust and compression errors in the images.

So we have a smaller, unprocessed image we can investigate.

"But" I hear Jack cry, "the smaller version won't show up the cables holding the LM!"

What? Isn't Jack the man who was able to spot an invisible 'wrecking truck' on the horizon about 300 metres away, and even identify what model it was from a catalogue?

Surely you should be able to see thick cables at a distance of 10 or 15 metres away!

No, Jack may believe NASA has altered the image for "nefarious purposes" but I think they have just made one version more presentable.

Of course, the only way to be sure is to have a look at the original negative from NASA. I sure Jack has done this, haven't you?

Let's just examine Jack's claims in a little more detail.

The image was taken in lunar orbit. There was no Earth in the background, no lunar surface, no landscapes - just black sky. Nothing to give anything away.

So why does Jack say the LM was on cables?

BECAUSE THE LM COULD NOT FLY, OF COURSE!

It could not fly, so it could not fly in space, and so logically images of it flying in space had to be faked, right? THAT'S what the cables were for!

The only problem with that assumption is that you have to account for the still images of the Apollo 9 LM in flight - as well as Apollo 10, Apollo 11, Apollo 12, Apollo 13 (after it was jettisoned), Apollo 14, Apollo 15, and Apollo 17.

Oh - and all the movie footage of the LM in flight during those missions.

No, it's very simple: yet again, Jack is wrong.

Craig Lamson also added:

Evan, just to add a side note on this one.

When I first looked at the image Jack questioned I too saw signs of poor retouching. From my experience retouching images for advertising, the retouching has the mark of a hard edge photoshop "brush".

So I decided to investigate further. Looking closely at the image showed to me what appeared to be scanlines made by a user scanning a print and tryine to lighten it. The CCD imagers in flatbed scanners do a rather poor job of producing pure black tones (dmax) without producing digital noise. This image is full of digital noise and scan lines.

So then I wrote Kipp Teague, who runs the Project Apollo website, and who according to the credits at the Lunar Surface Journal, also suppled them with the scan of thsi image.

His reply:

Craig,

AS16-118-18894 was scanned from a print obtained in 2000. The lo-res version on the site is un-retouched. Apparently when I prepared the hi-res version, I noticed the non-0,0,0 black levels in the scan, and did a

hurried job of attempting to correct this. I think I will re-request a digital scan of this image from Johnson Space Center.

Kipp

At 12:25 PM 4/1/2005, you wrote:

>Thanks for the swift reply.

>

>I agree that the die hard hoax believers are a lost cause, however I would love to clear this one up as

>the image in guestion is one of the very few that show the rover in its stowed position on the LM and its

>being dismissed because of what looks like retouching. Its amazing that someone could think, despite >ample evidence to the contrary that the rover was stored where the mesa was....

>

>But I would like to nail this one down.

>

>Thanks for your efforts.

>

>Craig Lamson

So ...the image was retouched to clean up a poor scan.

But the bigger issue is White's inability to even understand what side of the LM he is looking at. Sheesh, its not that hard.

Edited March 3, 2006 by Evan Burton

[Evan Burton]

DOING THE TWIST - APOLLO 16

Firstly, I'd like to address the editor's comments:

Editor's Comments: 1. Compare a similar scenario in previous Apollo 15 study: Doing the twist. (Which I have shown to be wrong - EB) 2. The usual definition of a panorama is that of a series of photographs, shot sequentially by standing and turning about 10 degrees for each shot, and NOT INTERRUPTING FOR OTHER PHOTOS. This does not seem to be the case for NASA. During his panorama research Jack White has found a number of anomalies, other than the visual problems he discusses within these studies. NASA still infers that these panoramas are the true representation of the lunar EVA sites. While NASA may wish to argue for poetic license in giving the public 'an idea' of the relevant lunar environment – these pictures were never initially presented as 'approximate, or idealised composites'. Nor are they today. Since it is quite obvious (from the similar conclusions drawn independently by both Jack White and David Percy) that these 'composite panoramas' are full of discrepancies, as such they cannot be considered the true record of their purported lunar locations. See also later notes concerning Apollo 17 panoramas.

The Editor seems to imply that there are interuptions in the pan sequences.

This is simply not true.

The first image shown by Jack, labelled AS16-107-17431/9, is a reduced section of a alternative pan image a16.1431346_ab.gif. The original (a16pan1431346.jpg) taken about 143:13:46 and called the "4 O'Clock LM Pan, Start of EVA-2". Charlie Duke took this pan from NNE of the LM at the start of EVA-2. John Young is beyond the Rover. The frames are AS16-107-17419 to AS16-107-17440, a complete sequence of pan images without interruption. The first frame, 17419, was spoilt by light. The pan was assembled by Dave Byrne.

The second image shown by Jack is labeled As16-113-18342/9, but it is actually a crop from pan sequence a16-1193346lw.jpg made up of AS16-113-18313 to AS16-113-18330, made by Lennie Waugh. Again it is an uniterrupted pan sequence. Charlie Duke took this pan from a position 20 meters southeast of the LM. Beyond the LM, we see John Young sitting on the Rover, preparing to make a test drive after deployment.

The Editor, like Jack, has no spatial awareness and has not actually researched the images.

So the first image was taken NNE of the LM. We can see the north side of the LM with the ladder (west) on the right, and the 'flat side (east) on the left. No problems.

The second image was said to be taken SE of the LM. I would say it was ENE of the LM. You can see the 'flat side' (east) pointing towards us.

Because of the change in position, the LM no longer hides some of the horizon detail in the second image.

Once more, Jack has not researched the ALSJ and been unable to tell that the images are taken from different positions.

Once more, Jack is wrong.

[Evan Burton]

JUMP SALUTE 1 - MORE WIRED ACTION

First I can refer you to here.

Once more, the images are NOT identical. Jack just crops sections out of both, then tells you that they are.

Look at AS16-113-18339 and AS16-113-18340.

In 18339, look on the left hand side of the frame and you can see all of the LM and LRV.

In 18340, the frame has changed slightly and the edges of the LM and LRV are missing.

He then says:

"Young appears to be dangling on a hidden wire, not in an action pose, since his legs are wide apart and his knees locked. A real jump would have the feet close together, and the knees flexed."

And how many lunar walks have you made, Jack?

The feet are wider apart than normal because the astronaut in jumping in reduced gravity. He needs to have good footing when landing because the PLSS backpack means he has a higher centre of gravity than normal. Jumping up that high in the reduced gravity is no problem, so there is no reason for his feet to be close together.

And why would the knee be flexed? That is exactly OPPOSITE of what you would expect. He is jumping up and the movement would leave his legs extended!

From Clavius.org:

"Neil Armstrong reported that he was able to jump to the third step of the lunar module ladder, which he estimated to be five or six feet from the lunar surface [Reports 11b, 89]. "I did some fairly high jumps," said Armstrong, "and found that there was a tendency to tip over backward on a high jump. One time I came close to falling and decided that was enough of that" [Ibid., 76]. Falling over backward would risk damaging the PLSS."

Jack also says there are no footprints in the first image: WRONG!

AS16-113-18339 (hi resolution, cropped, annotated, enlarged to 200% of original size)

The yellow arrows indicate his footprints.

His arm remains basically the same because he is saluting.

Curious reflections? What curious reflections? Please point them out. Same with shadows.

The visor reflection is basically the same because he jumped to basically the same height in each.

And Jack doesn't mention that there is television footage of Young making the jump.

From ALSJ:

Journal Text: 120:25:02 to 120:26:57. QuickTime Clip: (1 minute 54 seconds; 1.33 MB)

The television camera mounted on the lunar rover records the astronauts photographing each other beside the flag. Duke appears first, getting into position beyond the flag. Young walks into view and does a “Big Navy Salute” by bending his knees slightly, springing about half a metre off the ground, and saluting. They switch positions and Young takes Duke's picture. Duke returns to the rover, followed by Young.

Journal Text: 120:25:23 RealVideo Clip: (3 min 21 Sec) by Ken Glover

The astronauts take each other's pictures beside the flag. Ken Glover writes: “The RealVideo Clip has a frame rate of 15 fps. This clip was produced from a high-resolution AVI file which I captured from the VHS source, but the RealVideo clip itself was optimized for streaming over slow (56k modem) connections and is therefore somewhat degraded in terms of resolution. For students interested in analyzing John's 'Big Navy Salute', I have made a short, 2.7 Mb MPEG-1 clip of better resolution and at 29.97 fps, showing only the two jumps.”

How many more times will Jack be wrong?

[Evan Burton]

JUMP SALUTE 2

Again a false assertion is made.

The shots are NOT taken with a tripod because they are not exactly the same.

I'll use the low-res images from the ALSJ to show how they are different:

AS16-113-18339

AS16-113-18340

AS16-113-18341

AS16-113-18342

In the first two, the photographer (Charlie Duke) has not moved position but you can see his upper body (where the camera is mounted) moved a little, accounting for the slight differences in shots.

They then changed places.

In the second two, you can see the photographer (John Young) also stayed in position but his upper body moved a little between shots.

Perhaps Craig or someone with a little more experience than me would like to make a composite moving GIF image, in order to really hightlight the movement.

Now look at the rock shadow Jack has pointed out:

Comparison of AS16-113-18339, -18340, and -18342 (high resolution, cropped, annotated)

You can see the first two are virtually identical. That is to be expected, as the photographer did not move.

The last crop is slightly different. Look at the movement indicated.

THAT'S BECAUSE THE PHOTOGRAPHER WAS IN A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT POSITION.

A tripod was NOT used; the images were taken by two different photographers who stood in similar - but not the same - positions.

Jack is wrong.

[Evan Burton]

PORT OR STARBOARD - NASA REFUSES TO ANSWER

As I explained before, no wonder NASA won't bother to answer all Jack's claims. There are at least two reasons:

1. They'd need an entire section to continually answer his "claims"; and

2. The information is available in a multitude of sources if Jack would do some research.

Okay, to begin, where was the LRV stowed on the LM?

This NASA diagramme shows everything you need to know.... and it's the diagramme for Apollo 16:

Apollo 16 LM descent stage contents list from www.myspacemuseum.com

Notice the axis marked FORWARD (+z). That's what they often call the west side of the LM. Notice how it says "Ascent Stage Forward Hatch Location" - in otherwords, the egress hatch.

When we start talking about stuff on the descent stage, they talk about "quads" rather than east, west, etc.

As you can see from the diagramme, the LRV is stowed in QUAD 1 (southwest portion of the LM descent stage).

Notice also what is stowed in QUAD IV (the northwest section of the LM descent stage) - the MESA pallet.

MESA stands for Modularized Equipment Stowage Assemply. That's where they kept tool, lens, all sorts of lunar equipment.

Here is an image of the MESA on the LM mockup from Apollo 11:

AP11-S69-31585

Notice how it is to the LEFT of the ladder (Quad IV).

Here is an image of the Apollo 16 astronauts practising LRV deployment on mockups:

AP16-72-HC-57

Okay, so the MESA is to the LEFT of the ladder (QUAD IV) and the LRV is to the RIGHT of the ladder (QUAD 1).

Now go back and have a look at the hi-res image of AS16-113-18342

See below the flag, and to the right of the LRV? You can see the MESA. Compare that to how the LRV was stowed.

AP15-KSC-71PC-415

See how it looks stowed?

Here are some images of the Apollo 15 LRV prior to fitting on the LM:

AP15-KSC-71P-206

I'll show some more LRV images in the next post; the forum won't allow too many images in a single post.

Now, remember Jack's images of the "LM on cables"? AS16-118-188894? Have a look at a crop from that:

AS16-118-188894 (high resolution, cropped, enlarged to 150%)

What's that? It looks like a stowed LRV, just like in the previous images! You can even see the US flag decals that were placed on the LRV fenders.

Jack has said:

"Further, all footprint activity associated with assembly of the rover is shown on the starboard side"

Now, I believe the image Jack has shown (and not labelled) is AS16-116-18578. Let's have a look at sections of that image, and the next in the sequence, AS16-116-18579:

AS16-116-18578 (hi resolution, cropped, annotated, reduced to 75% of original size)

You can see the LRV tracks leading away from Quad I.

AS16-116-18579 (hi resolution, cropped, annotated, reduced to 75% of original size)

Again, you can see tyre tracks, disturbed soil from all the activity, lanyards from the LRV deployment, packing materials associated with the LM, and part of the LRV deplyment package (a frame) on the side of the LM.

Now, despite the multide of photographic images, documentation, video, and witness accounts, Jack still claims the LRV was in Quad IV. There are no records, images, or documents that show the LRV was in Quad IV - except for Jack's own claim. Don't you think that sounds a little delusional?

[Evan Burton]

PORT OR STARBOARD - NASA REFUSES TO ANSWER (continued)

Some more images of the LRV & the LM.

The Apollo 15 LRV undergoing a 'check fit' to LM-10:

AP15-S71-31409

AP15-71-HC-682

AP15-KSC-71P-299

Here's one from Apollo 17, showing the LM after the LRV was deployed (the stowage is to the left of the LM. You can see the "ladder leg" on the far left. That's west. The LRV was stowed in QUAD 1, or southwest of the descent stage.

AS17-137-20873

Here is a diagramme showing the mechanism that held the LRV in Quad I:

Courtesy of www.myspacemuseum.com

The 'saddle' and 'telescoping rods' can be seen (it's marked with an arrow) in the earlier crops showing disturbed soil where the LRV had been unstowed.

[Evan Burton]

APOLLO 16 LEM CHANGES IN MID-AIR

Two quick points, Jack.

1. It's a LM, not a LEM (ask me if you want further explanation regards this).

2. It's not mid-air (to be a pedent); perhaps mid-space is more correct.

That does not change, however, the error Jack has made.

In the top image (after undocking from the CSM but prior to landing), the MESA bay is closed.

In the second image (after landing), the MESA bay has been opened and we are looking at another flag/US decal, placed INSIDE the MESA bay. The decal we saw in the top image is on the outside of the MESA, which has been opened and folded down - we can't see the side that was shown in the top image.

The "editor" also notes:

Editor's Comment: A distinctive feature of the Apollo 16 decal is the diagonal line across the US flag (as in the lower picture). However, this diagonal line (lanyard) is absent from the top image when the LM was allegedly in flight.

Well of course it is absent from the top image. The MESA hadn't been opened yet! Is it really that difficult to understand? Closed - no lanyard; open - lanyard. Lanyard INSIDE the MESA bay.

[Evan Burton]

APOLLO 16 LEM ANOMOLIES

This is Jack simply grasping at straws. He has used lots of lines and numbers to show nothing - and he is even wrong with his own annotations.

Jack said:

S1 has a thickness shown by T, about 10"

HUH? Even Blind Freddy can see that S1 is about four times thicker than T.

Anyway, let's cut to the chase and examine Jack's claims.

1. LRV too thick to be R1.

Jack has said:

T2 shows thickness of alleged LRV, about 18"

T3 shows actual LRV thickness, about 40"

Now, forgetting that Jack is using "about" for his T3 and not actually confirming the dimensions involved, his T2 is a distance that the LRV package extends out from the LM. He makes no allowance for the fact that the bulk of LRV fitted INTO the Quad. See the previous images of the LRV being fitted to the LM.

Here is another, just for good measure:

AP15-71-HC-684 (Hi resolution, cropped, reduced to 70% of original size)

2. White lines show that camera views are identical.

No, it shows they are similar.

3. Rod H should only be in bottom photo.

Wrong again. The "rod H" is NOT part of the MESA; it is a section of the LM landing struts (the MESA did not have any rods or struts on it).

I've done a comparison here of AS16-118-18894 (top right), AS16-116-18579 (top left), AS17-151-23201 (middle), and AS16-118-18897 (bottom).

Comparison of AS16-118-18894 / AS16-116-18579 / AS16-118-18897 / AS17-151-23201 (all high resolution, cropped, annotated, various images have been scaled)

4. Much lighting is identical.

This is where Jack has cheated a little bit; he has changed to colour / contrast / brightness to suit his needs - but forgot to tell you. Let's have a look at the ORIGINAL images:

AS16-118-18894 (unaltered)

AS16-116-18578 (unaltered)

Not quite the same lighting, is it?

5. Flag and US decals cannot move right together.

Same as I have said before - In 18578 (after landing), the MESA bay has been opened and we are looking at another flag/US decal, placed INSIDE the MESA bay. The decal we saw in 18894 is on the outside of the MESA, which has been opened and folded down - we can't see the side that was shown in 18894.

[Evan Burton]

THE SAME PHOTOSHOOT?

More grasping at straws.

Firstly, the section reflecting light was in about the same position in each image; it was NOT on the LRV pallet base, but the foil on the LM outer surface. This was just above the LRV pallet. Look at the previous images to confirm this.

Secondly, Jack seems surprised that a section of foil should happen to reflect light in both images when they are taken from a similar position. I say section because I do not believe it was EXACTLY the same area that is reflecting light in both images - merely similar.

Another comparison:

AS16-118-18894 / AS16-116-18578 (Hi resolution, cropped, scaled)