Jack White Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 ...cause they cain't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 ...cause they cain't. I addressed this claim on another forum about 6 months ago. http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=2713238 Hi-res link to the image Here's a close-up of the reflection of the astronaut taking the photo (Jack Schmitt) in Gene Cernan's visor. The hoax theory goes that the PLSS isn't visible, which indicates the image was somehow faked. I found an image of Jack taken by Gene, AS17-140-21385. I chose this one because the pose is similar to the pose reflected in the visor. Here I've highlighted various steps I took, cropping Jack (some artistic licence taken with the legs), and flipping him horizontally. Below I've highlighted further steps I've taken. I've reduced Jack's height to 46 pixels (sorry Jack!) to match his height in the reflected visor image. A little bit of contrast reduction, then I reduced the width of the image to match that of the reflected image. Here I've superimposed the final crop of Jack from AS17-140-21385 over the reflected image in AS17-141-21608. Quite a good match (not perfect, but you wouldn't expect it to be). Notice in particular the similarity of the PLSS/helmet. The PLSS seems to have been reduced in width by the curvature of Gene's visor, and is being mistaken in the reflected image for part of the helmet itself. Mystery solved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 ...cause they cain't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Talking of Apollo related claims "Nobody ever explained,because they can't" neither Jack nor any of his fellow HB have explained how multiple light sources can produce one shadow per object unless this was intentionally done w/ carefully placed spotlights. Funny that Jack who has been relativelly inactive recently "coincidentally" started two threads today shortly after Evan and I pointed out his failure to address this issue on another thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 And the fact that Jack already asked that question on this forum, and failed to acknowledge the answers. Typical Jack tactic: make baseless claims, ignore replies, slink away when proven woefully wrong, wait a while reintroduce same thing, ignore replies, slink away, etc, etc. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13784 Perhaps I'm being a bit harsh there; perhaps Jack's memory isn't what it used to be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Turner Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 ...cause they cain't. I addressed this claim on another forum about 6 months ago. http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=2713238 Hi-res link to the image Here's a close-up of the reflection of the astronaut taking the photo (Jack Schmitt) in Gene Cernan's visor. The hoax theory goes that the PLSS isn't visible, which indicates the image was somehow faked. I found an image of Jack taken by Gene, AS17-140-21385. I chose this one because the pose is similar to the pose reflected in the visor. Here I've highlighted various steps I took, cropping Jack (some artistic licence taken with the legs), and flipping him horizontally. Below I've highlighted further steps I've taken. I've reduced Jack's height to 46 pixels (sorry Jack!) to match his height in the reflected visor image. A little bit of contrast reduction, then I reduced the width of the image to match that of the reflected image. Here I've superimposed the final crop of Jack from AS17-140-21385 over the reflected image in AS17-141-21608. Quite a good match (not perfect, but you wouldn't expect it to be). Notice in particular the similarity of the PLSS/helmet. The PLSS seems to have been reduced in width by the curvature of Gene's visor, and is being mistaken in the reflected image for part of the helmet itself. Mystery solved. Hey Dave, did you ever get any further with the Pyra-not theroy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 Hey Dave, did you ever get any further with the Pyra-not theroy. Ah, happy memories. The best thread you ever started. (Was it the only thread?) http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...brother%20egypt Looks as if all my images have been deleted! Treachery! And FURTHER proof that I was on to something, since the Illuminati have clearly censored all my evidence. Scoundrels! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 8, 2009 Author Share Posted July 8, 2009 If he is turned sideways as your phony study shows, how did he take the photo with a chest mounted camera? Show us the camera. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 8, 2009 Author Share Posted July 8, 2009 There are lots of ways to light photographs. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 If he is turned sideways as your phony study shows, how did he take the photowith a chest mounted camera? Show us the camera. Jack It's hard to tell with so few pixels, but it appears to be in his right hand, held up near his visor. You know the cameras were not always chest mounted, they were detachable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 There are lots of ways to light photographs.Jack A large light source like that first one would not produce shadows with sharp edges like those seen in the apollo photos, and a small one with a tight beam like the second one in your pic would only light a tiny area. The only way to get shadows like those seen in the apollo photos is with a single source very far away, like the sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 If he is turned sideways as your phony study shows, how did he take the photowith a chest mounted camera? Clearly he is turned away from the other astronaut in the shot, as he is at the extreme LHS of the image. IIRC the FOV of the lens is approx 56 degrees. Show us the camera.Jack Difficult to be certain due the lack of pixels and the compaction of the image, but we can make an educated guess based on the evidence. Look at this image again. Pay particular attention to the brightly lit EVA notepad, and the side of the camera housing above it. Now, see what those two items look like in each of the 3 images in this study. Finally, compare the location of the camera in the 3rd image from the left, to the RHS image (which is the reflection in the visor), and you can see where I believe the camera housing is. Phony study? Please show where I made an error and I'll happily look at it again. Just saying 'it's phony' doesn't cut much ice. I think most people should be able to follow the study and understand what I'm getting at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 If he is turned sideways as your phony study shows, how did he take the photowith a chest mounted camera? Show us the camera. Jack It's hard to tell with so few pixels, but it appears to be in his right hand, held up near his visor. You know the cameras were not always chest mounted, they were detachable. I disagree with you on that one Kevin. See my explanation to Jack above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 There are lots of ways to light photographs.Jack I don't think this explanation explains this image from Apollo 14 very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 There are lots of ways to light photographs.Jack How in the world would you know? You could not light your way out of a paper bag. Your "opinions" about light and shadow are worthless. www.craiglamson.com/apollo 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