Faked Apollo Photos

[Craig Lamson]

[http]http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l12/straydog_02/a14comp.jpg[/http]

1. He does not explain why in consecutive exposures dust on the lens affects some exposures and not others.

I went out of my way to explain this, Jackie old boy.

The dust on the lens is visible when sunlight strikes the lens. All downsun shots don't show it.

As for the rest of Jack's "rebuttal", what has it got to do with the original study? Nothing I'm afraid. It's a red herring tactic.

Jack - instead of trying to change the subject, please do try and stay on topic. Just so the casual viewer knows why you are wrong in this latest study, here's my reply. You've quite clearly highlighted the wrong features. I'm sure this wasn't a deliberate error.

Check out this photo...look at that skinny leg shadow and watch it bend all over

http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=...mp;forward=main

[Duane Daman]

The shadows in the photo link you provided look nothing like the"match stick legs" shadow in the Conrad photo .

But if you take notice of what the SUN looks like in your photo , you will notice that it looks NOTHING like the alleged Sun in any of the Apollo photos ...

It is round , with the star like qualities of having a spoked or star burst effect .... and most importantly , it is NOT the shape of the Pentagon , as what is seen reflected in Alan Shepard's visor on the Apollo 14 moonset !

[Craig Lamson]

The shadows in the photo link you provided look nothing like the"match stick legs" shadow in the Conrad photo .

But if you take notice of what the SUN looks like in your photo , you will notice that it looks NOTHING like the alleged Sun in any of the Apollo photos ...

It is round , with the star like qualities of having a spoked or star burst effect .... and most importantly , it is NOT the shape of the Pentagon , as what is seen reflected in Alan Shepard's visor on the Apollo 14 moonset !

Actually the the shadows DO resemble the shadows in the Conrad photos if you look at them with intellectual honesty. Check out the shadow on the ground near the feet of the right hand person. Pretty stick like legs there, much smaller that the actual legs. And also notice the curvature of the shadow as it moves down the slope. So tell me Duane how are YOU looking at the image?

And the you are comparing apples to oranges with your sun comparison. The sun image is far from round, it is actually oblong.

Have you researched the reason WHY the starburst effect happens? You do understand that the TYPE of light has no effect, right? You do understand that is not always required for a bright reflection or actual photography of a light to be depicted as a starburst...right? And finally you do understand that the condition of the reflective surface controls the atcual shape of the reflection...right? If you answered no to any of these questions its time to learn a thing or two before you opine on the subject again.

Edited October 5, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Duane Daman]

I understand THREE things ..

1. The shadow in your photo looks NOTHING like the shadow in the faked Conrad photo .

2. The pentagonal shaped light source reflected in the A14 Shepard visor could not possibly have been made by the Sun .

3. The condition of the A14 visor , which had no obvious problems with it , did not cause the "Sun " to have a pentagonal shape .

[Duane Daman]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but a true greyscale image will reveal exactly the same level of detail whether you show just the red, green or blue channels. Changing the input/output levels of one of these channels (EDIT: with the other 2 channels set to zero) is just the same as adjusting the brightness/contrast/gamma of the overall image.

Incidentally, I don't think Jack has converted the image from greyscale to RGB anyway - I think he converted it to CYMK. Otherwise how did he remove the yellow and blue (cyan) as claimed? (EDIT: RGB has no yellow channel...)

The image may look very pretty, but there's no extra information there that couldn't be revealed just by adjusting the levels in the greyscale image.

All the image does show is what we knew was there all along: dust on the lens (and the flare it produces). There's good evidence for this in the reduced contrast in the rock shadows closer to the horizon, the fact that these dusty zones seem to be in the same regions photos whenever it's present, and the fact that it is present in photos where sunlight is striking the lens (rather than facing downsun).

Thats a very good point Dave, I skipped right over the blue/yelllow bit. I'm not really sure whot processs Jack has been using, other than its sure SOUNDS and LOOKS impressive, which I think was his entire point, results be damned.

Edited October 20, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Dave Greer]

I'm not sure what the point you're trying to make here is. Is it that some of the colour channels show more or clearer information than others? The eye may interpret it that way, but the actual levels must be the same for each pixel in each image, since by definition, the greyscale number is the same for each RGB channel.

Before this thread goes too far off topic: it seemed to me that Jack was claiming that you could reveal extra information that wasn't in the original image using his chroma analysis. I disagree that you can reveal information that isn't already present in the original, but it may well be easier for the eye to interpret changes in contrast (on my monitor, with my eyes, I could make out very little detail in the green channel on your image). I'm willing to cut Jack some slack here, it's perfectly possible that he was able to reveal details that he could see more clearly in the red channel alone, rather than the greyscale image.

How about we return to the actual meat and bones of the discussion of the image: whether or not the bright patches are reflections off a black backdrop, or flare caused by sunlight striking dust on the lens?

[Duane Daman]

I'm not sure what the point you're trying to make here is. Is it that some of the colour channels show more or clearer information than others? The eye may interpret it that way, but the actual levels must be the same for each pixel in each image, since by definition, the greyscale number is the same for each RGB channel.

Before this thread goes too far off topic: it seemed to me that Jack was claiming that you could reveal extra information that wasn't in the original image using his chroma analysis. I disagree that you can reveal information that isn't already present in the original, but it may well be easier for the eye to interpret changes in contrast (on my monitor, with my eyes, I could make out very little detail in the green channel on your image). I'm willing to cut Jack some slack here, it's perfectly possible that he was able to reveal details that he could see more clearly in the red channel alone, rather than the greyscale image.

How about we return to the actual meat and bones of the discussion of the image: whether or not the bright patches are reflections off a black backdrop, or flare caused by sunlight striking dust on the lens?

Image reposted .

Edited October 21, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Craig Lamson]

I'm not sure what the point you're trying to make here is. Is it that some of the colour channels show more or clearer information than others? The eye may interpret it that way, but the actual levels must be the same for each pixel in each image, since by definition, the greyscale number is the same for each RGB channel.

Before this thread goes too far off topic: it seemed to me that Jack was claiming that you could reveal extra information that wasn't in the original image using his chroma analysis. I disagree that you can reveal information that isn't already present in the original, but it may well be easier for the eye to interpret changes in contrast (on my monitor, with my eyes, I could make out very little detail in the green channel on your image). I'm willing to cut Jack some slack here, it's perfectly possible that he was able to reveal details that he could see more clearly in the red channel alone, rather than the greyscale image.

How about we return to the actual meat and bones of the discussion of the image: whether or not the bright patches are reflections off a black backdrop, or flare caused by sunlight striking dust on the lens?

What this clearly shows is that there is NOT any additional visual detail shown in any of the color channels. They actually shows LESS visable detail than the B/W original. Check out the floor.

What can also be tested is the actual "pureness" of these seps. Using the info tool in Photoshop shows than none of the channels are pure. In other works, an area in a the b/w image that samples 244, might be in the red channel image=244, b=45 g=35.

This tells us that either the process of converting a greyscale image to rgb adds false color information or that the "chroma" process used by White is introducing false information into the image.

Its very clear that this is a flawed process. Why use a method that introduces false information when the stated goal is finding the truth?

Finally here is a simply test anyone with photoshop can perform to check the quality of this "chroma" process.

1. copy or save Whites image from this post.

2. open the image in photoshop

3. select the channels window.

4. view the various color channes in the image by selecting only one color channel at a time.

Interesting to say the least eh?

Edited October 6, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Duane Daman]

Here is the image that was removed from my post explaining why Dave was wrong in his claim about the type of method Jack used in analysing black and white photographs .

I have now edited the text in this study to allow it to be posted without breaking any of the forum's rules .

[Dave Greer]

Here is the image that was removed from my post explaining why Dave was wrong in his claim about the type of method Jack used in analysing black and white photographs .

I have now edited the text in this study to allow it to be posted without breaking any of the forum's rules .

Jack

I'm not sure why you're making an issue out of this one. You state that I "claimed you used Red-Green-Blue channels in analysing photos". Not quite sure what you mean by that, ot why you would be offended either.

Here's the post where you first introduced your analysis - link.

Here's the analysis itself.

You yourself stated you had "removed yellow and blue from the chroma scale". It's impossible to do this with an RGB image which is by definition Red-Green-Blue - hence I questioned whether you might have converted the image to CYMK (Cyan-Yellow-Magenta-BlacK). It's possible you made a mistake and meant that you'd removed the green and blue, not yellow and blue.

Here is the Apollo image correctly split into 3 colour channels (no need to do this with a black and white image since it cannot reveal any extra information).

And here is your other demo study Jack. The Red, Green and Blue channels in your study aren't pure colour. Compare them with the pure colour channels below.

All that said, I don't really know why you decided to raise this issue. Smacks of being side-tracked to me.

The important thing is what was being discussed - what was responsible for the slight grey patches in some Apollo photos. I've provided empirical evidence that demonstrates that it's caused by dust on the lens which I'll summarise below:-

1. Dust on lens causes flare in non-Apollo photos.

2. Flare is present in same places in frame (when visible).

3. Flare is only present when sunlight is capable of directly striking the lens.

4. Reduction in contrast in the region of lunar surface where the dust is on the lens.

Do you have any empirical evidence to support your claim that it's caused by reflection off a backdrop of some kind?

Edited October 25, 2007 by Dave Greer