(Merged) Fetzer / Burton Apollo Hoax debate thread

[John Dolva]

them what thunks it?

[Duane Daman]

Duane,I'll ask you again. Please tell us what exposure time/ f-stop would be needed for ISO 160 film to overcome the threshold of exposure and record faint stars on film. This is pretty sandard stuff Duane.

You ignored the hard question as usual and instead quoted a guy who can't even get the lens used on the lunar surface correct....

Your answer is?

Well, according to "MRphotogod", I believe that exposure time would be about 30 seconds to be able to image stars above the lunar surface.. Too bad the Apollo astonots never bothered to use that exposure time, or even take a tripod to the Moon, so everyone could see those amazing looking, brilliant stars above the "moon".

But then I guess hitting golf balls around was more important than photographing stars.

As for the guy who got lens size wrong, ever heard of a typo before? .. How about an honest mistake which would not effect his ability to calculate the distance of the "earth" from the "lunar" horizon in the faked Apollo 17 photos, where NASA FINALLY remembered to put some images of "earth" into their anomalous pics.

Edited September 15, 2010 by Duane Daman

[Craig Lamson]

Nice job Duane, linking us to jpg artifacts of scanned b/w film grain and smudges. Really impressive stuff.

The AS15-85-11425HR image used by that researcher was from a Hassie high res original NASA photo, not from a scanned copy.

So stars are really jpg artifacts, film grain and smudges? .. Wow, you Apollogists really do have a prepared mundane excuse for each and every anomaly found in the faked Apollo photos.

Who woulda thunk it?

Duane it was a SCAN from a b/w negative, then it was downsampled and saved as a jpg. Since it was a NEGATIVE, the blackness of h3e sky was near clear. Which means every dust speck, and smudge onte scanner will show up as added density. DO you understand this at all?

And AGAIN you dodge the question...

Please tell us what exposure time/ f-stop would be needed for ISO 160 film to overcome the threshold of exposure and record faint stars on film. This is pretty sandard stuff Duane.

If you can't even answer this simple question, your ability to understand WHY you can't see stard in the surface photogrpahy is nonexistant.

Do the calculations for us Duane. We know the brightness of the brightest star. We know the brightness of the moon. We know the exposure time/f-stop/film speed used for the surface photography. We know the characteristic curve of he film, We know the dynamic range it can record.

Knowing all of thisase show us that it can record starlight with a full sun exposure.

[Kevin M. West]

Nice job Duane, linking us to jpg artifacts of scanned b/w film grain and smudges. Really impressive stuff.

The AS15-85-11425HR image used by that researcher was from a Hassie high res original NASA photo, not from a scanned copy.

The original photos aren't digital. The images online are ALL scanned copies.

[Kevin M. West]

Duane,I'll ask you again. Please tell us what exposure time/ f-stop would be needed for ISO 160 film to overcome the threshold of exposure and record faint stars on film. This is pretty sandard stuff Duane.

You ignored the hard question as usual and instead quoted a guy who can't even get the lens used on the lunar surface correct....

Your answer is?

Well, according to "MRphotogod", I believe that exposure time would be about 30 seconds to be able to image stars above the lunar surface.. Too bad the Apollo astonots never bothered to use that exposure time, or even take a tripod to the Moon, so everyone could see those amazing looking, brilliant stars above the "moon".

But then I guess hitting golf balls around was more important than photographing stars.

As for the guy who got lens size wrong, ever heard of a typo before? .. How about an honest mistake which would not effect his ability to calculate the distance of the "earth" from the "lunar" horizon in the faked Apollo 17 photos, where NASA FINALLY remembered to put some images of "earth" into their anomalous pics.

Why would you go to the moon to take pictures of the stars? The view isn't better from there, it's worse.

[Craig Lamson]

Duane,I'll ask you again. Please tell us what exposure time/ f-stop would be needed for ISO 160 film to overcome the threshold of exposure and record faint stars on film. This is pretty sandard stuff Duane.

You ignored the hard question as usual and instead quoted a guy who can't even get the lens used on the lunar surface correct....

Your answer is?

Well, according to "MRphotogod", I believe that exposure time would be about 30 seconds to be able to image stars above the lunar surface.. Too bad the Apollo astonots never bothered to use that exposure time, or even take a tripod to the Moon, so everyone could see those amazing looking, brilliant stars above the "moon".

But then I guess hitting golf balls around was more important than photographing stars.

As for the guy who got lens size wrong, ever heard of a typo before? .. How about an honest mistake which would not effect his ability to calculate the distance of the "earth" from the "lunar" horizon in the faked Apollo 17 photos, where NASA FINALLY remembered to put some images of "earth" into their anomalous pics.

If it takes 30secs to record stars, how can the photo you point to show stars when it was exposed for a minimum of 1/60 of a second?

It's no typo because he uses the angle of view for an 80mm lens instead of a 60mm lens, which DOES effect his abiltiy to do the CORRECT calculations. The sad thing is not that the guy made the mistake but rather you missed it. You did'nt not check to see if the work was correct. You just pushed it as fact.

[Evan Burton]

And as we have discovered, Jim (or Jack) DID make a mistake. The image was taken here on Earth, and was never claimed to be a NASA image.

REPLY TO BURTON'S FIRST RESPONSE (IN THREE PARTS)

Part 2. One of my colleagues at the University of Minnesota Duluth used to day, when he was confronted with an argument that defeated his position, "I take it back and assert the opposite!" Kevin West has questioned the authenticity of one of the photos of rover tracks that I have had Jack post on my behalf (on the discussion thread), "I ask because those don't look like rover tracks at all, the treads are way too deep and the wrong shape, and there are a variety of different shoeprints in the image." Remarks like these caused me to pause and question whether or not it was taken on the moon. "What image was this photo supposedly from?", he asks.

To which John Dolva has posted a very interesting reply:

"Mission 17 http://demilo.public...7/images17.html

Where are they too deep? Its a long shot. The tracks pixelation closeup is the same near as far. Far the tracks are at pixelation size. Near a number of pixels make up the tracks. Looks like they dropped the southern end on the SEP, drove, letting out the cabling, set up the north SEP unit, Gene stayed there, Jack drove back in a wide turn, and took up position for the photo Gene then took.

http://demilo.public...134-20436HR.jpg

What has stuck me in the meanwhile is that this photo, which Fotosearch.com identifies as CSPO67 k0672620 and calls "Mark of the Moon Rover", where "CSP067" stands for "Fotosearch.com" itself and "k0672620" for that specific image, has evidential value whether it was purportedly taken on the moon or not. Notice, in particular, that Kevin has acknowledged "a variety of different shoeprints in the image". So if this IS an "official moon rover photograph", as I suspect, then it demonstrates that these photos are faked.

Among my reasons for thinking so (i) that the setting looks like that of many other "official" moon rover photographs, (ii) John Dolva has offered a counter-argument to Kevin's suggestion it was NOT taken on the moon, (iii) other photos offered by Foto Search are identified as "artist's renderings", for example, if they are not "official" moon landing photographs, and (iv) Foto Search has s price list as follows:

Web Resolution

501 KB / 72 dpi / 5" x 6.7" / RGB

USD $15.00

Low Resolution

1 MB / 72 dpi / 7.1" x 9.5" / RGB

USD $20.00

Medium Resolution

10 MB / 300 dpi / 5.4" x 7.2" / RGB

USD $40.00

High Resolution

25.9 MB / 300 dpi / 8.7" x 11.6" / RGB

USD $60.00

Super High Resolution

52 MB / 300 dpi / 12.3" x 16.4" / RGB

Enhanced License USD $99.00

I can't imagine how they could be charging prices like these for an image that was NOT "an official moon rover photo from the moon". Even more importantly, however, is EITHER THE PHOTO IS FROM THE MOON OR IT IS NOT. If it is an "official" photo FROM THE MOON, then the variety of different shoe prints in the image proves that the photos are faked. But IF IT IS NOT FROM THE MOON, then the resemblance to other "moon landing" photos gives us clues about where all of these photos were faked. Either way, it matters--where Jack has posted the image (with sneaker impressions circled) in post #98.

So while Burton wants to suggest that I made a mistake, I could cast this differently, namely, as BEGINNER'S LUCK. And I am asking Jack to post an enhanced image that highlights the variety of shoe prints that are present in this image. And I would ask Evan not to evade the dilemmas I have posed! I find it fascinating that, in attempting to diminish the "Mark of a Moon Rover" photo, whose origin is not presently known, Kevin West has located others that are similar and were probably taken by the same photographer around the same time::

Kevin M. West, on 08 September 2010 - 12:14 AM, said:

Ready for a laugh? Same artist on fotosearch. Title "Desert Tracks".

http://www.fotosearc...SP067/k0672584/

http://www.fotosearc...SP067/k0673508/

Kevin may think this is a laughing matter, but Duane Daman has replied recounting an observation by Neil Armstrong that supports my conjecture that they could all have been taken at the same location:

"Armstrong: 'The surface is much like the high desert of the United States.'

"Correction: The surface IS the high desert of the United States.

"It really is difficult to tell the 'moon' and the desert apart, isn't it?

" *Edited [by Duane] to delete the word 'lunar' from Armstrong's quote ... He never said the word lunar before the word surface ... So I guess he [Neil Armstrong] really is an honest guy after all!"

[Duane Daman]

Duane,I'll ask you again. Please tell us what exposure time/ f-stop would be needed for ISO 160 film to overcome the threshold of exposure and record faint stars on film. This is pretty sandard stuff Duane.

You ignored the hard question as usual and instead quoted a guy who can't even get the lens used on the lunar surface correct....

Your answer is?

Well, according to "MRphotogod", I believe that exposure time would be about 30 seconds to be able to image stars above the lunar surface.. Too bad the Apollo astonots never bothered to use that exposure time, or even take a tripod to the Moon, so everyone could see those amazing looking, brilliant stars above the "moon".

But then I guess hitting golf balls around was more important than photographing stars.

As for the guy who got lens size wrong, ever heard of a typo before? .. How about an honest mistake which would not effect his ability to calculate the distance of the "earth" from the "lunar" horizon in the faked Apollo 17 photos, where NASA FINALLY remembered to put some images of "earth" into their anomalous pics.

If it takes 30secs to record stars, how can the photo you point to show stars when it was exposed for a minimum of 1/60 of a second?

It's no typo because he uses the angle of view for an 80mm lens instead of a 60mm lens, which DOES effect his abiltiy to do the CORRECT calculations. The sad thing is not that the guy made the mistake but rather you missed it. You did'nt not check to see if the work was correct. You just pushed it as fact.

It is fact .. You're the one who's wrong about the size of the lens used for the Apollo 17 photo shoot.

"The Apollo 17 mission carried four 70MM cameras, and 23 magazines of film. A total of 3584 images were taken, 1645 in black & white, and 1939 in color."

"The camera accessories are:

80 mm f/2.8 Lens. Standard or normal lens for the 70 mm camera with 2-1/4 x 2-1/4-inch film format. Used for general still photography when a wide angle or telephoto view is not required. Focuses from 3 feet to infinity. Has built-in shutter with speeds from 1 second to 1/500 second. Field of view, each side, is approximately 38 x 38 degrees.

http://www.ehartwell.com/Apollo17/BlueMarblePhotography_Cameras.htm

Which makes his calulations correct and proves beyond any doubt that the Apollo 17 photos, showing the "earth" in the sky were faked and that, as usual, you are just blowing smoke.

[Duane Daman]

Nice job Duane, linking us to jpg artifacts of scanned b/w film grain and smudges. Really impressive stuff.

The AS15-85-11425HR image used by that researcher was from a Hassie high res original NASA photo, not from a scanned copy.

The original photos aren't digital. The images online are ALL scanned copies.

Well then it looks like you've found the perfect cover story excuse to explain away every single anomaly found in the phony Apollo photos, didn't you?

All you have to do to pretend to debunk any of Jack's studies, which prove the Apollo photos are nothing but staged garbage, is that they're not original NASA photos, but just scanned copies.

How convenient.

Edited September 15, 2010 by Duane Daman

[Evan Burton]

REPLY TO BURTON'S FIRST RESPONSE (IN THREE PARTS)

Part 3. That my contributions are proceeding at a snail's pace has to do with the fact that (i) I am new to this, (ii) I do not have replies that I can take "off the shelf", and (iii) that I am giving these issues a fresh look, but I am going to make some mistakes along the way. That should not be too surprising, since everyone else involved in this knows more about the "moon photos" than I do. But it occurs to me that, if I had some fake "moon photos", I would surround them with "artist's conceptions", "training photographs", and "photo composites" to create a background against which discoveries about some of these anomalies could be deflected by alleging that they were "mixed up" with the real Apollo photos, were not from the right set, and all of that. That makes it easier to disarm finds.

That's a nice hypothesis Jim, but it's not the case. All Apollo images have ID numbers, so we can tell what was taken on what mission, on the ground or inflight.

No-one has claimed that that "artists conception" or other images were taken in flight... as a matter of fact, Jack is the only one who has made that claim.

Now that I am getting my feet wet, I am not surprised that I might have made a mistake in suggesting that the moon rover may have been located "using a crane", which is less likely than at least one alternative. It would have been cumbersome, but it might have used a harness (or "cradle") to lift the rover. Either driving it or pushing it would not have left the areas between the tires undisturbed by rover tracks, which is the oddity that indicates these images have been staged or otherwise faked. The best method to have used to do that may have been much simpler, such as the use of photo compositing, a technique that has been around at least since 1858! (See THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX, p. 44 and p. 139.) Something like that might have been more efficient.

Again, nice hypothesis but it fails when we apply Occams razor. Why lower it in, why use photo retouching (which might be detected) when you have a perfectly servicable LRV that can be rolled into position?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Apollo_15_Lunar_Rover_training.ogg

A more systematic approach to the issues before us, therefore, would involve the application of the four stages of scientific investigations: PUZZLEMENT, where something simply does not fit into our background knowledge and beliefs; SPECULATION, enumerating the possible alternative explanations that might account for the anomalous phenomenon; ADAPTATION, comparing the alternatives with respect to their respective explanatory power, using likelihood measures of evidential support; and, finally, EXPLANATION, accepting the hypothesis with the highest likelihood, when the evidence has "settled down" and all points in the same direction. When the evidence is inconsistent and does not hang together, then the probability of fabrication is great.

No Jim - that is YOUR explanation process; you have used it many times, funnily enough always to do with 'conspiracy theories'.

The 'scientific method' involes the following steps:

• Ask a Question
• Do Background Research
• Construct a Hypothesis
• Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
• Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
• Communicate Your Results

But I return to what I have already said: which is more likely? We have evidence that an LRV existed and that it was capable of movement - even powered movement. So why fake that?

When some of the evidence has been fabricated or faked, then its exposure as fabricated or faked will be what “points in the same direction” as the evidence that is authentic. In the case of the assassination of JFK, for example, establishing that the weapon cannot have fired the bullets that killed him, that he was on the 2nd floor at the time of the shooting, that the palm print on the barrel was created after his death, and that the back-yard photos of him were his head pasted on someone else’s body all serve to reinforce other indications that he was the “patsy”, not the assassin. See, for example, “Dealey Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK?” < http://www.und.edu/i.../jfkconference/ > and “JFK Assassination. How Patsies are Framed: The Case of Lee Harvey Oswald” < http://www.globalres...xt=va&aid=16224 >

The likelihood of an hypothesis h, given evidence e, equals the probability of evidence e if hypothesis h were true. Thus, we are looking for the hypothesis that would have the highest probability as the cause of producing the evidence as its effect. The probability that the weapon could not fire the rounds, that he was not on the 6th floor, that his print was planted, and that the backyard photos’ were faked, if Oswald was the assassin of JFK, is exceedingly small, since it should not have been necessary to frame a guilty man. The probability of those same effects, if Oswald was the “patsy”, however, is very high. Since one hypothesis is preferable to another when it has a higher likelihood on evidence e, the patsy hypothesis, whose likelihood is very high, is clearly preferable to the assassin hypothesis, whose likelihood is exceedingly small. The evidence suggests he didn’t do it.

Kevin West has argued that “The missing tracks between the wheels are easy to explain. The astronauts had to stand between the wheels to get on and off the rover. They had to walk around the rover to use the equipment on it. They walked all over the tracks and destroyed them in the process. It's clear when you look at the other pictures from the same time, the soil around the rover, including between the wheels, is stirred up from the astronaut activity, but you can see the tracks in the areas they haven't walked yet.” So we need to consider the likelihood that he is right as opposed to the alternatives that this was done using a crane, that the rover was carried or driven into position, or the photos faked.

The problem for Kevin (Evan, Greer, and the others) is that the area between the wheels is too smooth and unperturbed for rover tracks to have been “covered up” by kicking the dust while performing other activities. Consider posts #91, #92, and #93. #91 and #93 show no indications of rover tracks at all, yet, if the rover had been driven or pushed to those locations, its tracks would have to be present. There is no indication of activity by astronauts that would have obfuscated them or “covered them up”. #92 seems to show some dust or dirt falling off the right front tire, but even in that case there are no tracks where we would expect to find them between the wheels, which suggests these photos are fake.

The likelihood that the rover was driven or pushed into position, in view of the absence of tracks between the tires, appears to be vanishingly small, since the dust or dirt would have had to reconstitute itself, rather like a rake smoothing over disruptions in a bunker during golf. Remember, there is no atmosphere on the moon; dust and dirt aren't being blown around. The likelihood that it was carried to its locations, given it only weights 80 pound on the moon, is clearly higher than its having been driven or pushed; but on Earth, where I believe these photos were taken, it would have weighed 480 pounds. The use of a crane would at least be consistent with the missing tracks between the tires. Absent further evidence, the most likely explanation appears be that some were created by compositing and others perhaps by using scale models.

If compositing appears to be the most likely and therefore preferable explanation for the absence of tracks in some moon rover photographs, then it should not be surprising if the same technique is employed in other contexts in creating the moon landing photographic portfolio. Evan has given links to his arguments, which I consider rather inappropriate. It is far better to present his arguments here in the thread itself, since many readers are unlikely to turn to them. Moreover, it is not entirely obvious what he is actually arguing, so I will offer my take on what he claims and then explain whether I agree or disagree. Remember that only some of the photos have to be exposed as fakes to impeach NASA's integrity.

Jim pushes the point about there being missing tracks, and this pointing towards fakery... but do we have Earth-bound examples of missing tracks? Yep. Do Jim and Jack suggest that all these images were faked or the vehicle lowered into position?

(Source)

(Source)

LIGHT/SHADOW NUMBER ONE: To explain the inconsistency, Evan says, “It is a composite!” Possibly, but how and by whom was it composed? The suggestion that reflection from a space suit has caused the back of the lander to be illuminated is highly improbable. Consider that these space suits do not carry a concave mirror on their fronts that would concentrate the light to illuminate it like a flashlight or a beacon. The rather crinkled suit would have reflected light in many directions, not focused in on the lander. The likelihood that this could explain what we see in the photograph is extremely small. Indeed, I would say that it is virtually zero, which means a second source of light from an artificial source, which was present on the set, appears to have created unintended effects.

I can't find these replies, but I can still address what you are saying. If i said it is a composite, then I presume it is this image of Apollo 11 on the lunar surface. It is a composite of the images AS11-40-5863 through to AS11-40-5869, created by Ed Hengeveld. The images were taken from different angles and thus lighting angles will be different. Yes, the Apollo EVA suits reflected light and that's why we can say it was not a second light source. Even the

.

LIGHT/SHADOW NUMBER TWO: Shadows cast do not have to be parallel, but it is a function of the distance between the source and the objects of illumination. If you have a small lamp on a table surrounded by small objects, for example, then those objects cast shadows in different directions. But that is because of their spatial proximity. The Sun is at a enormous finite distance from the moon, which implies the shadows thereby cast should be virtually exactly parallel. They are obviously not. The likelihood that these shadows, which run in distinctly different directions, were caused by the light from the Sun as their source cannot be correct. The rectilinear propagation of light from the Sun confers a probability of zero on this explanation. It required a separate, artificial source of light when the only available source, according to NASA, was the Sun. The photo has to have been faked.

Just plain wrong. See the aforementioned

, or here and here and here.

LIGHT/SHADOW NUMBER THREE: The center of the photo does not appear to be on an extension of the line of sight from the camera. Indeed, one of the gross oddities about the moon photos is that they should be so uniformly well-focused and centered, given the primitive equipment—externally mounted camera with no focusing ability—being used. Moreover, as http://www.ufos-alie...smicapollo.html has observed, variations in temperature that the film itself would have had to endure on the lunar surface “were recorded as being between -180F in the shade to an incredible +200F in full Sunlight. How could the film emulsion have possibly withstood such temperature differences? The astronauts can be seen to move between the shadows of the rocks and then into full sunlight in some shots.” Surely the film would not have survived under such conditions and the astronaut’s lives would have been jeopardized. This photo, too, is another fake.

Sorry Jim but you are again making mistakes. The camera was hardly primative; it was a Hassellblad 500, which had the option of being mounted onto a handle. It had a large focus ring to allow the astronauts to change focus. The astronauts practised extensively on Earth, becoming very familiar with the camera. The film was a modified Ektachrome film, prepared for a large temperature extreme but protected by the silver body of the camera. Of course, that temperature range was reached if the camera was left in direct sunlight or shadow for an extended period, or if there was heat transfer via conduction (the camera touching the lunar surface or similar). This becomes obvious when you think about the images taken during Gemini, Earth-orbital Apollo flights, Skylab EVAs and Shuttle EVAs. The camera had to stand up to the same conditions.

LIGHT/SHADOW NUMBER FOUR/FIVE/SIX: More could be said about the others in this set, but what is important is that many of these photographs display anomalies that are inconsistent with their authenticity as genuine photographs taken from the moon. If Evan wants to discuss these three as well as those I have already addressed, then I invite him to do so in the thread itself. Remember, if some of the photos can be proven to have been faked, then the jig is up. There should not have been necessary to fake photos of real moon landings. I have been struck by another companion thread on the forum entitled, “NASA has been CAUGHT retouching and switching photos”, which is accessible here:

http://educationforu...pic=16532&st=15

where Duane Daman has observed, “Nice find Jack, but we already know that NASA alters it's faked Apollo photos from time to time … Conspiracy researcher Ralph Rene discovered that fact many years ago when he asked NASA to send him a copy of their "C" rock photo, but they switched the ID numbers, so they could send him a different faked photo instead of the one he asked for. Then months later, when he finally did receive the correct photo, the "C" has been purposely airbrushed out”, observing that “NASA is always correcting their mistakes by altering their faked Apollo photos.” It sound very plausible to me that what Duane is describing is what NASA has been doing.

An illustration comes from the cover to the magazine, AVIATION WEEK AND SPACE TECHNOLOGY, which, Duane reports, “just happens to be one of the best examples [of the use of front screen projection], showing where the foreground of the set ends and the back wall of the set begins... Those front screen projection special effects really were amazing, considering how new that technology was during the filming of Project Apollo". Duane also provides a link to front-projection-screen “frolics” compliments of NASA here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWSg8pXqyMI

where the vertical wall front screen projection can be seen between time stamp 1:13 to 1:38. So I would like Evan to address this technique, which may also explain how the moon rover photographs were produced with missing tracks between their moon rover wheels.

Jim, but Duane argued about the supposed "C rock" and the cover showed it was not on the original and appeared only on one set of copies. It was a hair or similar. He totally ignored that fact it disproved his claim and went on to the 'front projection' claims.

[Jack White]

I am sorry to report that IN THIS INSTANCE the image posted by Duane which he obtained from a website "showing stars"

in a black lunar sky is not what is claimed. I decided to replicate the study, and downloaded a hi-res of the "original".

I subjected it to computer analysis, and within 30 seconds found the "stars" in the sky But there was a problem. The same

"stars" appeared in the black shadow of the crater in the foreground, which had been cropped out. So the "stars" are some

sort of artifact.

However, I dispute that the white specks are "dust on the lens". They are far too sharp. Dust on the lens would be

out of focus. Dust on the lens would appear as an unsharp blurry area, not sharp specks.

Bad studies need to be exposed. I am surprised that the Apollogists have not attacked this one before now.

Jack

MY STUDY IS AT BOTTOM BELOW THE OTHER IMAGES.

Showing his ignorance of photography, West said:

"If the stars didn't register on the film, then how would they show up on a digital scan of the same film made decades later?"

Anyone who has worked in a darkroom is always amazed at the amount of information actual neg or transparency. Any good

print is only an OPTIMUM AVERAGE of the best exposure values. Dark areas of a print, when printed a much shorter time, will

show much detail unseen in the best optimum print.

Computer analysis is based on recovery of this marginal unseen information. Black areas in a genuine photo will be filled

with detail which a computer scan can recover. A CERTAIN GIVEAWAY in computer enhancement is when ANY AREA WHICH

HAS BEEN BLACKED IN FAILS TO SHOW ANY DETAIL, like stars, or things hidden in shadows.

All Apollo skies which are solid black WITH NO DETAIL are by definition FAKE or PAINTED IN.

Jack

Jack is showing his ignorance of the properties of film, photographic exposure, digital levels adjustment and jpg compression.....

Stars in the skys of the Apollo surface images? Does Jack understand the subject of a films characteristic curve and the concept of Exposure Threshold? Lets ask him to explain how these work in relation to to the Apollos surface photography.

And thanks so much for the statement about the Apollo skies. You will be eating those words very soon.

It looks like the one eating your words ( or perhaps some stars ) is you, Craig.

When the Apollo photos are contrast adjusted (like Jack did on the one Dave claims to show "dust on the lens") stars should show up in the "lunar" skies, instead of spotlight effects.

Brilliant Stars in Image: AS15-85-11425HR

This image is enhanced only with Window's Photo Gallery, I did it in less than a minute.

(only right side and top of original)

This photo came from NASA... Below is the enhanced sky of image AS12-48-7121. At the top and left of the center, a shooting star can be seen. It looks like Al did not take this picture on the Moon but on the Earth. Meteorites are rocks that burn in Earth's atmosphere. The creators of NASA pictures kept forgetting that the Moon has no atmosphere, there are no shooting stars, no waving flags, no light dispersion, no red horizon, etc...

http://gianthoax.com/moonhoax/

imo, the difference between some Apollo photos showing stars, while others show spotlight effects, is not only where the photos were staged, but also how they were staged.. ie; outdoor sets, indoor sets, small scale models, or the use of front screen projection and image compositing.

Edited September 15, 2010 by Jack White

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Observing that you should not be both moderating and participating is hardly a "personal attack". That's a bit much.

No Jim, I'll continue to moderate outside that thread. If your actions require moderation, all mods will be consulted before any action is taken. I will not moderate you unilaterally. The fact that we are debating on a thread where i accept you can make personal attacks on me does not give you carte blanche to make personal attacks on me and others outside of the debate thread.

Evan,

Surely even you can appreciate that, as a participant in our "debate", you should not be moderating either the

debate thread or the discussion thread. Ask John to appoint someone in your stead to fulfill those roles with

respect to both threads. If we have a moderator for the debate thread, he should moderate this one as well.

Jim

Jim,

You have made repeated personal attacks on members. These are to cease or the moderating team will consider disciplinary action.

[Kevin M. West]

I am sorry to report that IN THIS INSTANCE the image posted by Duane which he obtained from a website "showing stars"

in a black lunar sky is not what is claimed. I decided to replicate the study, and downloaded a hi-res of the "original".

I subjected it to computer analysis, and within 30 seconds found the "stars" in the sky But there was a problem. The same

"stars" appeared in the black shadow of the crater in the foreground, which had been cropped out. So the "stars" are some

sort of artifact.

However, I dispute that the white specks are "dust on the lens". They are far too sharp. Dust on the lens would be

out of focus. Dust on the lens would appear as an unsharp blurry area, not sharp specks.

Bad studies need to be exposed. I am surprised that the Apollogists have not attacked this one before now.

Jack

Who said this one was dust on the lens? It's clearly not, it's scanner noise. And they're not sharp points, you made them sharp by drastically increasing the contrast.

[Craig Lamson]

It is fact .. You're the one who's wrong about the size of the lens used for the Apollo 17 photo shoot.

"The Apollo 17 mission carried four 70MM cameras, and 23 magazines of film. A total of 3584 images were taken, 1645 in black & white, and 1939 in color."

"The camera accessories are:

80 mm f/2.8 Lens. Standard or normal lens for the 70 mm camera with 2-1/4 x 2-1/4-inch film format. Used for general still photography when a wide angle or telephoto view is not required. Focuses from 3 feet to infinity. Has built-in shutter with speeds from 1 second to 1/500 second. Field of view, each side, is approximately 38 x 38 degrees.

http://www.ehartwell.com/Apollo17/BlueMarblePhotography_Cameras.htm

Which makes his calulations correct and proves beyond any doubt that the Apollo 17 photos, showing the "earth" in the sky were faked and that, as usual, you are just blowing smoke.

No you have it WRONG again. If you had read ALL of the words at the link you provided you would have found this little gem...

"Also in the lunar module - and making its first journey in space - was a Hasselblad 500EL Data Camera, which was the one to be used on the moon's surface.

The Data Camera, like the other two 500ELs, was a modified standard 500EL camera but differed from the others in several ways:

Apollo 11 Hasselblad 500EL data

camera showing Reseau plate.

[Phill Parker Archives]

The Data Camera was fitted with a so-called Reseau plate. The Reseau plate was made of glass and was fitted to the back of the camera body, extremely close to the film plane. The plate was engraved with a number of crosses to form a grid. The intersections were 10 mm apart and accurately calibrated to a tolerance of 0.002 mm. Except for the larger central cross, each of the four arms on a cross was 1 mm long and 0.02 mm wide. The crosses are recorded on every exposed frame and provided a means of determining angular distances between objects in the field-of-view.

The Data Camera was fitted with a new Zeiss lens, a Biogon f-5.6/60 mm, specially designed for NASA, which later became available commercially. Careful calibration tests were performed with the lens fitted in the camera in order to ensure high-quality, low-distortion images. Furthermore, the lens of the camera was fitted with a polarizing filter which could easily be detached.

The Data Camera was given a silver finish to make it more resistant to thermal variations that ranged from full Sun to full shadow helping maintain a more uniform internal temperature. The two magazines carried along with the Data Camera also had silver finishes. Each was fitted with a tether ring so that a cord could be attached when the Lunar Module Pilot lowered the mated magazine and camera from the lunar module to the Commander standing on the lunar surface. The exposed magazines were hoisted the same way.

The Data Camera was modified to prevent accumulation of static electricity. When film is wound in a camera, static electricity is generated on the film surface. Normally, this electricity is dispersed by the metal rims and rollers that guide the film, and by the humidity of the air. In a camera fitted with a Reseau plate, however, the film is guided by the raised edges of the plate. As glass is a non-conductor, the electric charge that builds up at the glass surface can become so heavy that sparks can occur between plate and film - especially if the camera is used in a very dry environment or in vacuum. Sparks cause unpleasant patterns to appear on the film and can be a hazard if the camera is used in an atmosphere of pure oxygen. To conduct the static electricity away from the Reseau plate in the Data Camera, the side of the plate facing the film is coated with an extremely thin conductive layer which is led to the metallic parts of the camera body by two contact springs. Contact is effected by two projecting silver deposits on the conductive layer. The Reseau plate, or register glass, is not a new development in photography. What is most remarkable, however, is that the group of Hasselblad staff working on NASA camera projects in collaboration with Carl Zeiss was successful in applying the idea to a small camera - like the Hasselblad 500EL Data Camera. This camera is not only useful in space photography, it is particularly suitable for all kinds of aerial photography. The special cameras produced in the past for aerial photography were large and intended for a large negative-format - frequently meaning high prices. The Hasselblad 500EL Data Camera with its Reseau plate produced a small and comparatively low-cost camera which gave satisfactory results in aerial photographic work."

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Nice work, Duane. Of course, Lamson will never admit he's wrong. And the use of digital rather an analog photographs

can't serve as a "catch all" excuse, either, unless it can be shown that, in a specific case, it makes a relevant difference.

Showing his ignorance of photography, West said:

"If the stars didn't register on the film, then how would they show up on a digital scan of the same film made decades later?"

Anyone who has worked in a darkroom is always amazed at the amount of information actual neg or transparency. Any good

print is only an OPTIMUM AVERAGE of the best exposure values. Dark areas of a print, when printed a much shorter time, will

show much detail unseen in the best optimum print.

Computer analysis is based on recovery of this marginal unseen information. Black areas in a genuine photo will be filled

with detail which a computer scan can recover. A CERTAIN GIVEAWAY in computer enhancement is when ANY AREA WHICH

HAS BEEN BLACKED IN FAILS TO SHOW ANY DETAIL, like stars, or things hidden in shadows.

All Apollo skies which are solid black WITH NO DETAIL are by definition FAKE or PAINTED IN.

Jack

Jack is showing his ignorance of the properties of film, photographic exposure, digital levels adjustment and jpg compression.....

Stars in the skys of the Apollo surface images? Does Jack understand the subject of a films characteristic curve and the concept of Exposure Threshold? Lets ask him to explain how these work in relation to to the Apollos surface photography.

And thanks so much for the statement about the Apollo skies. You will be eating those words very soon.

It looks like the one eating your words ( or perhaps some stars ) is you, Craig.

When the Apollo photos are contrast adjusted (like Jack did on the one Dave claims to show "dust on the lens") stars should show up in the "lunar" skies, instead of spotlight effects.

Brilliant Stars in Image: AS15-85-11425HR

This image is enhanced only with Window's Photo Gallery, I did it in less than a minute.

(only right side and top of original)

This photo came from NASA... Below is the enhanced sky of image AS12-48-7121. At the top and left of the center, a shooting star can be seen. It looks like Al did not take this picture on the Moon but on the Earth. Meteorites are rocks that burn in Earth's atmosphere. The creators of NASA pictures kept forgetting that the Moon has no atmosphere, there are no shooting stars, no waving flags, no light dispersion, no red horizon, etc...

http://gianthoax.com/moonhoax/

imo, the difference between some Apollo photos showing stars, while others show spotlight effects, is not only where the photos were staged, but also how they were staged.. ie; outdoor sets, indoor sets, small scale models, or the use of front screen projection and image compositing.

Edited September 15, 2010 by James H. Fetzer