Faked Apollo Photos

[Craig Lamson]

Here ya go Craig ... This one's for you , compliments of Jack ....

Prove me wrong anytime you can, I welcome it.

The problem with that challenge is that I can prove you wrong a dozen times , by showing you numerous anomalies in the Apollo photos , but sadly you will always claim that no anomalies exist ... That is what is known as being in a state of denial ... and unfortunately it makes you blind to anything except your own closed minded opinion .

Thanks for posting that, Duane. Now show them the one with the

light reflecting off of the backdrop. Light, of course, does not bounce

off of the atmosphere free lunar sky.

Jack

Tell me Jack, just how many backdrop have you lit? You have any massive experience with studio lighting...and not just what you have admitted to me...shooting product boxes in your agency conference room.

In any case, your "reflected light" has already been delt with in aouther thread, its dirt on the lens Jack, causing flare. Wanna try again?

But lets assume you are correct and its a reflection of the "studio light sun". Physics are at play here WHite. Try this one on for size; THE ANGLE OF INCIDENCE EQUALS ANGLE OF REFLECTION. You have indicatred where YOU think the 'sun' is placed, so PLEASE INDICATE HOW this light placement can create TWO reflections that fit the angle of incidence law?

Maybe you can do some more of your silly "enhancements", you know the ones where you jack the tones around in an image in a vane attempt to make the ignorant think you know what you are doing. They are really pretty but utterly useless.

What complete nonsense!

...show us proof that "dirty lenses" caused "flares" but did not affect the photo quality

...show us how a flare can occur when the light source is at a right angle to the lens

...show us why the flare registered only in the green and blue layers, but not the red

...show us how reflection can occur in a solid black sky with no atmosphere

...show us why multiple studio lights cannot have multiple angles of incidence

...show where I said the "sun" is placed; in a big studio, MULTIPLE lights are used

...and you ought to learn spelling...delt, aouther, indicatred, vane...or people will think

you are one of the "ignorant".

Jack

Oh I can't spell Jack and I'll be the first to admit it.

Proof of dirty lens causing flare THAT DOES affect photo quality (note that the image in question in this thread has reduced contrast)...just look at the many Apollo images that show just such a flare. That includes this image

The sun in this image IS NOT at a right angle to the lens. You can see that it is a FACT that the sun is striking the lens by observing the pentagonal lens flare at the helmet area

The image is a GREYSCALE image in its original form. THERE ARE NO COLOR LAYERS.

There is no reflection in the sky, only lens flare.

There is NO INDICATION of anything other than the sun and the lunar surface providing light for this photograph.

You indicate the placement of the "sun" with both your yellow lines drawn on the photograph AND you claim in that the sun is at a right angle to the lens. In additon there is nothing in this image that indicates more than the sun and the lunar surface as a light source. And guess what? You can use more than one light in ANY sized studio.

Try again next time.

Edited September 26, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Here ya go craig ... Here's Jack's second present for you !

Oh , and it's for you too Dave .. I wouldn't want you to feel left out ... ( I bet Dave is gonna say that's just "lens flare" ...Besides "smudges or scratches on the visor , that's his second most used excuse )

Thanks, Duane. I await the explanation of why the "lens flare" of the red doughnut

STOPS AT THE HORIZON LINE without also affecting the lunar surface.

Jack

The answer White is that the flare DOES effect the image quality of the lunar surface. If you were qualified to actually analyze photographic images you would have noticed this. Instead you produced a "color" enhancement of a grayscale image. Now talk about useless! Par for the course. In any case this type of lens flare generally has the effect of reducing local contrast, mostly seen in the black tones, such as the shadows of the rocks near the horizon line. In the areas less affected by the flare you can see deeper shadows on the rocks.

Man White, you just can't get anything right can you?

Edited September 26, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Duane Daman]

What did I say the reason for the reflection would be ?? .. LENS FLARE !! ... It's always LENS FLARE !! .... That is the lame excuse that is always used for almost every anomaly in the faked Apollo photographs .

LENS FLARE is responsible for that "match stick legs" shadow ... LENS FLARE is resposible for there being NO BOOTPRINTS leading up to where Conrad is dangling from his fly system , and LENS FLARE is responsible for every other problem with the Apollo photography .

The only trick that's new here is that DIRT on the lens has caused the LENS FLARE !!!

If only ONE Apollo photo is proven to be a fake , then ALL of them could be fake , right lamson ? .. and of course that's the real reason you will jump through any hoops necessary to prove that the problem is not what's wrong with the Apollo photos , but what's wrong with EVERYONE WHO KNOWS OR HAS PROVEN THAT THEY ARE FAKE !!

You haven't even see the worst of it yet .... but you will ... And you will also be forced to look at what nasa didn't bother to film or photograph ... and had astronauts really landed on an alien world almost 40 years ago , using technology that was a first , the Apollo photographic record would have been much different than it is .

The Apollo photos are pathetic moonset fakes and the Apollo Program was a ridiculous fraud .... And more people are aware of that fact than you or your Apollo defending pals could ever imagine .

nasa's program of ridicule is no longer working , except among the clowns who hang out at clavius and BAUT ... Calling those "ignorant " who can see very clearly that the Apollo photos are load of crap , is the only weapon the defenders of the Apollo lie have in their arsenal, to use against the conspiracy reasearchers who have exposed the hoax evidence on every level .

If you want to believe that the Apollo photos were really taken on the Moon and that nothing is wrong with them , fine ... but please stop attacking and insulting the people who know differently and have proven it .

Not every one of Jack's studies are correct , this had been proven ... but neither is every one of the Apollo photographs correct , and this has been proven also ... and when ONE PHOTOGRAPH HAS BEEN PROVEN TO HAVE BEEN FAKED , THEN THE ENTIRE PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD IS A FAKE ... and those who defend this fraud are being deceptive ... You all play a ridiculous game with the evidence that all is not well with the official Apollo record .. A game which you eventually will lose .

[John Smith]

Just want to ask that if this shadow is directly behind the person and appears angled because it's being cast on a sloped surface, isn't it odd that his right (frontmost) boot isn't at the same slope?

It is at the same slope.

Well, it doesn't look that way to me. If the boot were on the same slope as the shadow, the toe would be higher than the heel, but in the picture the toe is level, if slightly lower. Another thing is that the shadow appears to wrap around the heel, which tells me the heel is in ground contact. Curious, no?

[Craig Lamson]

What did I say the reason for the reflection would be ?? .. LENS FLARE !! ... It's always LENS FLARE !! .... That is the lame excuse that is always used for almost every anomaly in the faked Apollo photographs .

LENS FLARE is responsible for that "match stick legs" shadow ... LENS FLARE is resposible for there being NO BOOTPRINTS leading up to where Conrad is dangling from his fly system , and LENS FLARE is responsible for every other problem with the Apollo photography .

The only trick that's new here is that DIRT on the lens has caused the LENS FLARE !!!

If only ONE Apollo photo is proven to be a fake , then ALL of them could be fake , right lamson ? .. and of course that's the real reason you will jump through any hoops necessary to prove that the problem is not what's wrong with the Apollo photos , but what's wrong with EVERYONE WHO KNOWS OR HAS PROVEN THAT THEY ARE FAKE !!

You haven't even see the worst of it yet .... but you will ... And you will also be forced to look at what nasa didn't bother to film or photograph ... and had astronauts really landed on an alien world almost 40 years ago , using technology that was a first , the Apollo photographic record would have been much different than it is .

The Apollo photos are pathetic moonset fakes and the Apollo Program was a ridiculous fraud .... And more people are aware of that fact than you or your Apollo defending pals could ever imagine .

nasa's program of ridicule is no longer working , except among the clowns who hang out at clavius and BAUT ... Calling those "ignorant " who can see very clearly that the Apollo photos are load of crap , is the only weapon the defenders of the Apollo lie have in their arsenal, to use against the conspiracy reasearchers who have exposed the hoax evidence on every level .

If you want to believe that the Apollo photos were really taken on the Moon and that nothing is wrong with them , fine ... but please stop attacking and insulting the people who know differently and have proven it .

Not every one of Jack's studies are correct , this had been proven ... but neither is every one of the Apollo photographs correct , and this has been proven also ... and when ONE PHOTOGRAPH HAS BEEN PROVEN TO HAVE BEEN FAKED , THEN THE ENTIRE PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD IS A FAKE ... and those who defend this fraud are being deceptive ... You all play a ridiculous game with the evidence that all is not well with the official Apollo record .. A game which you eventually will lose .

Nice rant Duane.

Lens flare is lens flare and thats a simple fact. It leaves tell tale artifacts and in this case those artifacts are present. Background reflections would NOT leave a contrast lowering effect. In other words White is wrong again.

Ther is a BIG difference between using science,basic photo graphic knowlege and testing based empirical evidence and the "I'm guessing so therefore I have proven Apollo wrong". I understand this process is beyond you.

I've yet to see ANY solid evidence from the hoaxers that can withstand inspection, nor to I think I ever will. Why? Because the photographs are genuine. And how do I know? Unlike you your ilk, I don't have to 'believe" anything. I've subjected the Apollo images to deep inspection and based on a clear understanding of the photographic process, foud that the images conform as expected. I've tested various photographic principals said by the hoaxers to be impossible and found that the hoaxers were wrong.

You and your ilk on the other hand only speculate and almost always do so from a position of ignorance.

You THINK you can work without a knowlege base, but the sorry fact is that is simply not true.

Truck on Duane.

[Kevin M. West]

What did I say the reason for the reflection would be ?? .. LENS FLARE !! ... It's always LENS FLARE !! .... That is the lame excuse that is always used for almost every anomaly in the faked Apollo photographs .

No, it's only used for lens flares.

LENS FLARE is responsible for that "match stick legs" shadow

No one said that.

LENS FLARE is resposible for there being NO BOOTPRINTS leading up to where Conrad is dangling from his fly system

No one said that.

and LENS FLARE is responsible for every other problem with the Apollo photography .

And no one said that either. Stop making xxxx up.

The only trick that's new here is that DIRT on the lens has caused the LENS FLARE !!!

If someone said that, I'll disagree with it. Dust on the lens, if illuminated, would cause haze, not a lens flare. Different effects altogether.

The rest of your post is just the usual rant, I won't bother replying.

[Craig Lamson]

Just want to ask that if this shadow is directly behind the person and appears angled because it's being cast on a sloped surface, isn't it odd that his right (frontmost) boot isn't at the same slope?

It is at the same slope.

Well, it doesn't look that way to me. If the boot were on the same slope as the shadow, the toe would be higher than the heel, but in the picture the toe is level, if slightly lower. Another thing is that the shadow appears to wrap around the heel, which tells me the heel is in ground contact. Curious, no?

No, not curious. The slope runs upward from the bottom of the frame. The heel/toe relationship can change simply by a turn of the foot. It appears that the toe of the boot is aimed to the left of center, making it appear lower thant the heel.

[Craig Lamson]

What did I say the reason for the reflection would be ?? .. LENS FLARE !! ... It's always LENS FLARE !! .... That is the lame excuse that is always used for almost every anomaly in the faked Apollo photographs .

No, it's only used for lens flares.

LENS FLARE is responsible for that "match stick legs" shadow

No one said that.

LENS FLARE is resposible for there being NO BOOTPRINTS leading up to where Conrad is dangling from his fly system

No one said that.

and LENS FLARE is responsible for every other problem with the Apollo photography .

And no one said that either. Stop making xxxx up.

The only trick that's new here is that DIRT on the lens has caused the LENS FLARE !!!

If someone said that, I'll disagree with it. Dust on the lens, if illuminated, would cause haze, not a lens flare. Different effects altogether.

The rest of your post is just the usual rant, I won't bother replying.

Haze is a form of flare. Its a localized contrast reduction. There is no doubt that the surfaces of the lenses got coated in dirt and dust. It was really bad on Apollo12 and they commented on it and the fact that they had nothing to clean the lenses. Later missions included a brush. There are A12 images that show dirt on the lens.

Edited September 26, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Kevin M. West]

Just want to ask that if this shadow is directly behind the person and appears angled because it's being cast on a sloped surface, isn't it odd that his right (frontmost) boot isn't at the same slope?

It is at the same slope.

Well, it doesn't look that way to me. If the boot were on the same slope as the shadow, the toe would be higher than the heel, but in the picture the toe is level, if slightly lower. Another thing is that the shadow appears to wrap around the heel, which tells me the heel is in ground contact. Curious, no?

Looks to me like he's standing at the top of the slope, and it slopes downward behind him. Who knows what the exact shape of the ground under his boot is.

[Duane Daman]

Haze is a form of flare. Its a localized contrast reduction. There is no doubt that the surfaces of the lenses got coated in dirt and dust. It was really bad on Apollo12 and they commented on it and the fact that they had nothing to clean the lenses. Later missions included a brush. There are A12 images that show dirt on the lens.

Oh now "haze" is a form of "lens flare" also ... LOL

Dirty lenses on Apollo 12 has to be the most ridiculous explaination I have heard so far , for the anomalies that can't be explained away in this faked Apollo photo .

"standing at the top of a slope" would be another ridiculous claim , in attempting to explain away the phony , misplaced "match stick legs" shadow ...

You guys are really something .... If ONE Apollo photo is proven to be fake , then they all could be fake , right boys ?

Your pretense that none of the Apollo photos have ever been shown to be fake , or don't contain any anomalies in them , is what really gives your game away ..

It must be very difficult for people with mindsets such as yours , to look at these faked moonset photos , and still pretend to believe that they were really taken on the Moon .

Edited September 27, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Duane Daman]

This isn't a suspicious shadow photo , but it is suspicious nevertheless .

Would Al and Pete really have wasted valuable EVA time doing this , on mankind's second journey to an alien world ?

This one photo alone pretty much sums up what the Apollo 12 mission was all about ... A JOKE !

I call this one the A12 Whistle-Blower special !

[Duane Daman]

And then we have my personal favorite faked photograph from the Apollo 12 debacle , including more 'lens flare " reflecting off the black wall at the rear of the moonset !! .... This is the one where a stage light gets caught in the visor reflection and somebody at quality control failed to airbrush it out .

And no , it's NOT "a smudge on the visor " or "a scratch on the visor " or "dirt on the camera lens " or "lens flare" either ... It's a real ANOMALY that couldn't possibly have been on the real Moon !!

And Jack did a mighty fine study on it too !

[Craig Lamson]

Great shot of some dust induced lens flare there Duane.

Since YOU think it light reflecting off of a background, can you please explain WHY this reflection reduces the contrast not only in the sky ares.,..BUT ON THE HELMET AREA OF THE ASTRONAUT AS WELL? Background reflections don't do that Duane. Game,Set and Match for your reflection nonsense.

Now for the smudge...and yes it is a smudge. It just so happens that yesterday right before shooting the emprical evidecne that proves you and WHite wrong about the lens flares, I shot a job for a customer. That job included a head and sholders shot of a guy wearing a full face motorcycle helmet to be used in a poster. Now they are going to cut away the reflective visor and stip in another image...a reflection if you will, so the reflective visor was not really a concern. BUT...THIS VISOR HAD A BIG SMUDGE ON IT! Left over glue form a sticker. And oyu know what...IT LOOKS VERY MUCH LIKE THE SMUDGE ON THE APOLLO VISOR! I tossed the files with the smudge and cleaned the visor, but tomorrow I'm going to dig them out of the recycle bin and bust your chops once again. You are going down in flames again!

Dang, you just gotta LOVE empirical photographic evidence. It makes FOOLS of ignorant hoaxers!

[Duane Daman]

Now for the smudge...and yes it is a smudge

ROTF !!!

Yeah , MID on the UM tried to pass that stage light reflection off as a "smudge" also , but he wssn't quite as clever as you are .. He never thought of having just have happened to have taken a photograph of a motorcycle helmet visor with a matching "smudge " , as the one in the phony Apolllo 12 photo !

Oh , that is TOO FUNNY !! ... Somehow the phrase HOW CONVENIENT comes to mind .

The ridiculous Apollo photos have already gone down in flames a very long time ago ... ... but unfortunately you're too blind to accept that unhappy fact .

Edited September 27, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Craig Lamson]

Now for the smudge...and yes it is a smudge

ROTF !!!

Yeah , MID on the UM tried to pass that stage light reflection off as a "smudge" also , but he wssn't quite as clever as you are .. He never thought of having just have happened to have taken a photograph of a motorcycle helmet visor with a matching "smudge " , as the one in the phony Apolllo 12 photo !

Oh , that is TOO FUNNY !! ... Somehow the phrase HOW CONVENIENT comes to mind .

The ridiculous Apollo photos have already gone down in flames a very long time ago ... ... but unfortunately you're too blind to accept that unhappy fact .

Yes COINCIDENCE is an amazing thing. Yesterday while shooting the helmet with the smudge I paid it no mind, just part of the process...I cleaned it off and went on. But today your post rang the bell! Thanks so much for reminding me I had the stuff to blow you away again!

Well YOU and the rest of your ignorant friends may think the photos have gone down in flames, but the problem is you have no empirical evidence...just ignorant ravings about a subject you know nothing about!

I have no illusions you, nor White, nor Percy will ever deal with the evidecne that shoots you down in an intellectuallly honest manner. You do however make a wonderful case study for the lurkers with open minds. You three could not be better role models to show the world just how wacky and ignorant the hoaxers really are.

Edited September 27, 2007 by Craig Lamson