Faked Apollo Photos

[Duane Daman]

If Jack thought he was wrong , I'm sure he would say so ... but his claim of "NO PHOTOGRAPHER CAN STAND BESIDE HIS OWN SHADOW " is correct .

I hope no one minds me changing the subject here , but I was just wondering if "Mr. Light " or anyone else might be able to answer this question about the darkness of shadows on the Moon .

This quote comes from one of nasa's self serving web sites ...

"Truly, moon shadows aren't absolutely black. Sunlight reflected from the moon's gently rounded terrain provides some feeble illumination, as does the Earth itself, which is a secondary source of light in lunar skies. Given plenty of time to adapt, an astronaut could see almost anywhere. "

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/explorat...oonshadows.html

And here is what Jack has determined with some of his recent analysis .

I have done chroma analysis of other shadows, as you mention, ( * astronauts ) and they are

the DARKEST BLACK things in the photos. When the RGB chroma scale is reduced

to zero, the shadows remain...a dense black...as if filled in. Sufficiently lightened,

SOME DETAIL SHOULD REMAIN, such as pebbles or rocks...but I have not found

any yet. So SOME shadows are extremely dense...but others are not.

Jack

How can this anomaly be explained , aside from the obvious ? ... Like possibly the astronot's shadows were artifically blacked in , just like the faked black nasa 'lunar' sky .

[Dave Greer]

If Jack thought he was wrong , I'm sure he would say so ... but his claim of "NO PHOTOGRAPHER CAN STAND BESIDE HIS OWN SHADOW " is correct .

Well, it's impossible for anyone to literally stand beside their own shadow, but clearly the Apollo examples Jack gave aren't anomalous since they don't actually show that. Plenty of counter-examples have been given by several forum members, links to images on other sites, and a thorough technical explanation by Craig. If you have a camera you can prove to yourself that he's wrong on this occasion. Here's one of yours truly.

I hope no one minds me changing the subject here , but I was just wondering if "Mr. Light " or anyone else might be able to answer this question about the darkness of shadows on the Moon .

This quote comes from one of nasa's self serving web sites ...

"Truly, moon shadows aren't absolutely black. Sunlight reflected from the moon's gently rounded terrain provides some feeble illumination, as does the Earth itself, which is a secondary source of light in lunar skies. Given plenty of time to adapt, an astronaut could see almost anywhere. "

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/explorat...oonshadows.html

And here is what Jack has determined with some of his recent analysis .

I have done chroma analysis of other shadows, as you mention, ( * astronauts ) and they are

the DARKEST BLACK things in the photos. When the RGB chroma scale is reduced

to zero, the shadows remain...a dense black...as if filled in. Sufficiently lightened,

SOME DETAIL SHOULD REMAIN, such as pebbles or rocks...but I have not found

any yet. So SOME shadows are extremely dense...but others are not.

Jack

How can this anomaly be explained , aside from the obvious ? ... Like possibly the astronot's shadows were artifically blacked in , just like the faked black nasa 'lunar' sky .

Would need to see the study first, and also need to know the exact source Jack got his version of the picture from. The only one I recall where this claim has been used before was one on Apollo 17 with a large rock, much of it in shadow. Some lower resolution versions of the image show the shadow as being almost pitch black, whereas the high res versions show a lot of detail in the shadow.

I think it might have been this one.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/f...?AS17-137-20925

This hi-res version show much more detail in the shadow.

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-137-20925HR.jpg

Do you know which photo Jack is referring to specifically, and the URL where he got the image?

[Duane Daman]

Dave .... Nice try , but I was only speaking of the solid black astronot's shadows .

So far neither Jack or I have been able to find ANY astronot shadow that showed any type of light reflection within the shadow... None of them show any of the ground features, which should be discernable underneath the shadows , especially out in the blinding bright sunlight of the Lunar surface ..

Instead , they ALL appear to be a dense , solid black , as if they were filled in with a black marker ... Which as you read on that nasa site about the properties of Moon shadows , is impossble .

[Duane Daman]

Duane: A photograph taken with a camera set for a sunlit scene will not pick up the the faint light in the darkest shadows, those areas will be underexposed. You can't take those photos and then lighten them in photoshop to see what's in the shadow, if the info is not in the original pic you can't magically recreate it

Your statement is incorrect , as Dave has shown ... The shadows of the rocks and other objects, allegedly taken on the Moon , show a certain amount of light within the shadows... It may be extemely dark , but the ground etc. can be seen through the dark shadows to some extant .

As for the shadows of the astronots , not only are they solid black ( something which would have been impossible on the real Moon , according to nasa's article ) but if there were ANY features at all contained within the shadows , computer enhancement would be able to discover them , just like that proceedure enhanced and exposed the faked Apollo 12 spotlight 'Sun' .

Computer enhancement Photodhop is a conspiracy researcher's friend !

Edited September 21, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Kevin M. West]

I said in the darkest shadows there wouldn't be enough exposure, I didn't say in all shadows.

Wether there is enough light in a shadow to register on film depends on a few factors. In an flat wide open area with nothing around to reflect light except the surface itself, a shadow falling on the surface will be very black. If there is something nearby to reflect light into the shadow, like a hill, a rock, the LM, the other astronaut, etc, then there could be enough light to show something. For objects above the surface, like the dark side of the LM or house rock or even an astronaut, light will be reflected into the shadow from the surface itself. It all depends on what is there to reflect sunlight into the shadow.

The NASA article you refer to doesn't say that totally black shadows are impossible. In fact it mentions an incident where the astronauts couldn't see something they were working on:

They had just landed at Fra Mauro and were busily unloading the lunar module. Out came the ALSEP, a group of experiments bolted to a pallet. Items on the pallet were held down by "Boyd bolts," each bolt recessed in a sleeve used to guide the Universal Handling Tool, a sort of astronaut's wrench. Shepard would insert the tool and give it a twist to release the bolt--simple, except that the sleeves quickly filled with moondust. The tool wouldn't go all the way in.

The sleeve made its own little shadow, so "Al was looking at it, trying to see inside. And he couldn't get the tool in and couldn't get it released--and he couldn't see it," recalls Mitchell.

But more importantly, what it doesn't discuss, is taking pictures of those shadows. The human eye adapts to darkness and can pick up faint light, but a camera with exposure settings for a sunlit scene would be very underexposed in shadow.

Why don't you post some specific examples (in a new thread) so we can discuss them?

[Craig Lamson]

I said in the darkest shadows there wouldn't be enough exposure, I didn't say in all shadows.

Wether there is enough light in a shadow to register on film depends on a few factors. In an flat wide open area with nothing around to reflect light except the surface itself, a shadow falling on the surface will be very black. If there is something nearby to reflect light into the shadow, like a hill, a rock, the LM, the other astronaut, etc, then there could be enough light to show something. For objects above the surface, like the dark side of the LM or house rock or even an astronaut, light will be reflected into the shadow from the surface itself. It all depends on what is there to reflect sunlight into the shadow.

The NASA article you refer to doesn't say that totally black shadows are impossible. In fact it mentions an incident where the astronauts couldn't see something they were working on:

They had just landed at Fra Mauro and were busily unloading the lunar module. Out came the ALSEP, a group of experiments bolted to a pallet. Items on the pallet were held down by "Boyd bolts," each bolt recessed in a sleeve used to guide the Universal Handling Tool, a sort of astronaut's wrench. Shepard would insert the tool and give it a twist to release the bolt--simple, except that the sleeves quickly filled with moondust. The tool wouldn't go all the way in.

The sleeve made its own little shadow, so "Al was looking at it, trying to see inside. And he couldn't get the tool in and couldn't get it released--and he couldn't see it," recalls Mitchell.

But more importantly, what it doesn't discuss, is taking pictures of those shadows. The human eye adapts to darkness and can pick up faint light, but a camera with exposure settings for a sunlit scene would be very underexposed in shadow.

Why don't you post some specific examples (in a new thread) so we can discuss them?

I see that Duane does not have a clue about the principals of photographic exposure values, the power of reflected light nor the zone system. I'm afraid the words "threshold of exposure" will be quite lost on him.

But hey, HE KNOWS the Apollo images are fake beccause White and Percy told him so. Discussions with Duane are pointless. His mind is closed shut.

[Duane Daman]

Real shadows on the Moon would not be solid black under any conditions ... and very expensive , state of the art , top of the line, Hassleblad cameras, should take photos that would not be so "underexposed " .

On the other hand , pasted in faked shadows are solid black because they are not original to the photograph and therefore have no light within the shadow , nor do they show any objects within the shadows, such as the ground texture beneath them .

Here's an example of a solid black pasted in shadow...

and here is another one .

Edited September 21, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Duane Daman]

Here's another great example of a fake solid black shadow , which was pasted into the photograph , that in no way matches the position of the astronot .

[Duane Daman]

Avoiding this faked "match stick legs " solid black astro-NOT shadow photo is what speaks volumes ... That and your constant need to character assassinate Jack with your hateful games .

So what do you think "Mr. Light " ? .... How was this shadow pasted into the photograph ? ... And why do you suppose the photo faker didn't even bother to make the shadow match the object it was supposed to belong to ?

Kevin wants me to start a new thread on solid black faked astronot shadows .... Sound like real fun to me !

Edited September 22, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Dave Greer]

Avoiding this faked "match stick legs " solid black astro-NOT shadow photo is what speaks volumes ... That and your constant need to character assassinate Jack with your hateful games .

So what do you think "Mr. Light " ? .... How was this shadow pasted into the photograph ? ... And why do you suppose the photo faker didn't even bother to make the shadow match the object it was supposed to belong to ?

Kevin wants me to start a new thread on solid black faked astronot shadows .... Sound like real fun to me !

The simple (and correct) answer is, the shadow wasn't pasted in. ALso, there is detail in the astronauts shadow. Zoom in on the high resolution version of the image and prove it for yourself.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...4-64-9089HR.jpg

What I find incredible is why you would think there was the need to "paste a shadow" in anyway? I thought your argument was that NASA used huge superlights to represent the sun? Did these enormous lights cast no shadows? The astronaut is clearly lit by a strong source of illumination coming from somewhere to the left of the picture, so unsurprisingly there is a shadow to the right of the astronaut. Why you say the shadow doesn't match the astronaut I don't really know: it's quite clear that his legs are casting shadows. Maybe you're just having a little fun at our expense? If so, I bit because I actually thought you were serious!

[Craig Lamson]

Avoiding this faked "match stick legs " solid black astro-NOT shadow photo is what speaks volumes ... That and your constant need to character assassinate Jack with your hateful games .

So what do you think "Mr. Light " ? .... How was this shadow pasted into the photograph ? ... And why do you suppose the photo faker didn't even bother to make the shadow match the object it was supposed to belong to ?

Kevin wants me to start a new thread on solid black faked astronot shadows .... Sound like real fun to me !

The simple (and correct) answer is, the shadow wasn't pasted in. ALso, there is detail in the astronauts shadow. Zoom in on the high resolution version of the image and prove it for yourself.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...4-64-9089HR.jpg

What I find incredible is why you would think there was the need to "paste a shadow" in anyway? I thought your argument was that NASA used huge superlights to represent the sun? Did these enormous lights cast no shadows? The astronaut is clearly lit by a strong source of illumination coming from somewhere to the left of the picture, so unsurprisingly there is a shadow to the right of the astronaut. Why you say the shadow doesn't match the astronaut I don't really know: it's quite clear that his legs are casting shadows. Maybe you're just having a little fun at our expense? If so, I bit because I actually thought you were serious!

Being consistent with their arguments has never been a hallmark of the half-truthers, hoaxers. Duane is just doing what and repeting what he is told. For sure he does not understand any of this. Heck he even made some silly statement about...what was it again?...oh yea...

"... and very expensive , state of the art , top of the line, Hassleblad cameras, should take photos that would not be so "underexposed " ."

What a statement! With it Duane has undermined ANY claim he may ever make saying he understands the process of photography or that he can judge the work of ANYONE with regards to photographic claims. His own words and claims regarding the Apollo photograpahic record can now be discarded as foolish and ignorant ramblings.

Duane, in his "exhaustive" study and research into the Apollo photographic record has failed to understand on very simple truth. The lunar Hasselblad cameras, despite their cost, and quality are fully MANUAL cameras. As such the camera is only as good as the operator. The camera CANNOT make nor selcet any exposure options or settings. It cannot focus. If a photo is under, over or properly exposed, that is the result of the photographer entering the exposure settings into the lens.

Game, set and match Duane.

Edited September 22, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Duane Daman]

Excuse me , but Kevin was the one who claimed that the Apollo photos were UNDEREXPOSED and that's why the astronot's shadows were solid black .... So I guess with that statement he has now undermined any credibility he thought he had .. or maybe you thought he had .

So "Mr. Light" , are you now claiming that the Apollo astronots had a dark room in the LM with them and developed their phony photos while on the moonset ?!!? ... UNDEREXPOSED photos would have happen during the development of the negatives in the dark room by photo technitions , would it not ?

Dave ... The Apollo photos were faked in many different ways , pasted in objects and shadows being only ONE of them .

I'm sorry , but your high resolution photo did not help your cause at all ... The "stick shadow legs" going straight up and side by side do NOT match the position of the astro-actor on the set .

Hey , I have a super idea though ! ... Why don't you get you pal Peri to make another living room photo special of an Apollo astronot doll posing in front of a lightbulb ...If you're lucky , maybe he can photoshop this one to be a close match to the original fake photo too !

Edited September 22, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Duane Daman]

This is a study on Aulis describing one of the faked Apollo photographs .... It shows the photo as NASA made it , and then a comparison of what the shadow in the photo should have looked like if the apparent Whistle-Blowers had not been at work .

" And finally here is another example of what can only be described as a thoroughly phoney photograph, allegedly taken on the Moon. This Apollo 14 image (see pic 10) shows an astronaut walking towards the left of frame.

10. AS14-64-9089 as published by NASA.

So what is wrong with pic 10? As a representation of the astronaut’s legs and body, the ‘matchstick’ shadow effect is both inadequate and inaccurate. While the amount of light on the side of the body nearest the camera and furthest away from the Sun (which is out of frame to the left) is far too adequate, while equally inaccurate!

In other words, the astronaut has a totally disproportionate amount of light filling him in on his shadow side. It is important to remember the total blackness of the shadow side of the rocks in Apollo images of the lunar surface.

Now compare AS14-64-9089 with pic 11, our amended version.

11. AS14-64-9089 amended with corrected shadow detail.

The side of the astronaut nearest the camera is much darker in our pic 11, than is the case in NASA’s version. This adjusted image conveys the result one would expect without the benefit of an artificial light source filling-in the subject and with a more appropriate amount of shadow on the ground.

In our view pic 10 is entirely phoney and is yet further evidence of whistle-blowing. "

http://www.aulis.com/nasa12.htm

[Craig Lamson]

Excuse me , but Kevin was the one who claimed that the Apollo photos were UNDEREXPOSED and that's why the astronot's shadows were solid black .... So I guess with that statement he has now undermined any credibility he thought he had .. or maybe you thought he had .

So "Mr. Light" , are you now claiming that the Apollo astronots had a dark room in the LM with them and developed their phony photos while on the moonset ?!!? ... UNDEREXPOSED photos would have happen during the development of the negatives in the dark room by photo technitions , would it not ?

Dave ... The Apollo photos were faked in many different ways , pasted in objects and shadows being only ONE of them .

I'm sorry , but your high resolution photo did not help your cause at all ... The "stick shadow legs" going straight up and side by side do NOT match the position of the astro-actor on the set .

Hey , I have a super idea though ! ... Why don't you get you pal Peri to make another living room photo special of an Apollo astronot doll posing in front of a lightbulb ...If you're lucky , maybe he can photoshop this one to be a close match to the original fake photo too !

Duane, I just have to break my own rule for this one. Your latest statement is perhaps your most ignorant yet! You should give it up now. You have sunk to a new low.

First Kevin seems to understand the concept of photographic exposure quite well. You an the other hand, as we will see ONCE AGAIN , are totally clueless.

You stated:

"So "Mr. Light" , are you now claiming that the Apollo astronots had a dark room in the LM with them and developed their phony photos while on the moonset ?!!? ... UNDEREXPOSED photos would have happen during the development of the negatives in the dark room by photo technitions , would it not ?"

Well no Duane I'm not claiming that at all. Photographic EXPOSURE of film happens in the camera, not the darkroom. It is a combination shutter speed and f-stop and any number of combination sof these allow a percise amount of light to reach the film a create the latent image.

Next time you might want to bone up on the subject you are attempting to discuss so you don't look comletely foolish when you open your mouth.

The shadows in the Apollo image you posted look totally perfect. That you find them odd is only a reflection on you utter lack of knowlege about how these things work.

I suggest you quit reading the misinformation posted by the likes of White and Percy and open your eyes to the real world. Your shadow problems can be eliminated by simply walking outside on a sunny day and observing the interplay of light and shadow that is all around you. No camera required, just a pair of eyes, an open mind and a willingness to actually learn. It would sure be a step up from your current state of blindly following the mistakes of others and not even knowing why they are pulling the wool over your eyes.

Edited September 23, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Kevin M. West]

Excuse me , but Kevin was the one who claimed that the Apollo photos were UNDEREXPOSED and that's why the astronot's shadows were solid black .... So I guess with that statement he has now undermined any credibility he thought he had .. or maybe you thought he had .

Uhm, excuse me, I did not say the photos were underexposed. I said the area inside the shadow was underexposed. If you wanted to, you could adjust that camera to pick up the details inside the shadows, but then the rest of the photo would be overexposed. Go read up on dynamic range.