(Merged) Fetzer / Burton Apollo Hoax debate thread

[Kevin M. West]

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.

Love to see you match up either of those images with actual star charts.

[Craig Lamson]

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.

Nice work doing what? Pointing out JPG artifacts? Priceless stuff Jim!

Lets address the shortcomings of your statement here, besides the fact that that your photographic knowlege base is non existant.

In this instance the use of a digtial copy of a analog negative is the SPECFIC CASE. The Negative was SCANNED and then the file INVERTED to produce the positive seen on the web. This is a fact Jim and it makes ALL THE DIFFERENCE in the world.

WHY. because its the SOURCE of the texture that caused the jpg artifacts you and Duane call "stars".

Of course the real problem the both of you have is that fact that the film, at the exposure values used on the moon, was not cabable of recording the light from the faint stars in the first place.

Of course you can attempt to prove the world wrong and show us the calculations that will prove that stars can be recorded on the film used the surface of the moon using full sun exposure settings. Why don't you do that for us JIm, and show us thatthis is indeed "good work"

Edited September 16, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

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.

Love to see you match up either of those images with actual star charts.

Better yet, match them up with the other photos in the pan....

[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

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.

Like most non-digital photographers, West considers a photograph an "absolute". IT IS NOT. A photo is a compromise of

many values controlled by the photographer and darkroom technician. For instance, in b/w papers, there are five contrast

grades, as well as polycontrast papers with six filters. So CONTRAST is entirely controllable and not a "fixed" image. Many

other tools are available to a conventional photographer. In digital photography, the number of tools available is almost

unlimited. I can make prints of MANY contrast levels from a single negative. Contrast is NOT an absolute.

West also does not understand computer analysis. The computer can change ALL variables to bring out irregularities. Changing

all of these variables, INCLUDING contrast, is one of the ways the computer detects anomalies, bringing out things otherwise

unseen, So accusing me of changing the contrast is a sign of ignorance...since that is one of the tools of computer analysis.

Let me repeat, I DO change contrast and other variables to bring out unseen things.

Duh.

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

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.

Like most non-digital photographers, West considers a photograph an "absolute". IT IS NOT. A photo is a compromise of

many values controlled by the photographer and darkroom technician. For instance, in b/w papers, there are five contrast

grades, as well as polycontrast papers with six filters. So CONTRAST is entirely controllable and not a "fixed" image. Many

other tools are available to a conventional photographer. In digital photography, the number of tools available is almost

unlimited. I can make prints of MANY contrast levels from a single negative. Contrast is NOT an absolute.

West also does not understand computer analysis. The computer can change ALL variables to bring out irregularities. Changing

all of these variables, INCLUDING contrast, is one of the ways the computer detects anomalies, bringing out things otherwise

unseen, So accusing me of changing the contrast is a sign of ignorance...since that is one of the tools of computer analysis.

Let me repeat, I DO change contrast and other variables to bring out unseen things.

Duh.

Jack

Jack, YOU don't understand computer analysis. You just move some sliders around and call it ANALYSIS. When you find these so called irregularities, you make claims about them that are beyond your ability to understand. That will be made abundantly clear when the discussion turns to this subject. Like so many other things photographic Jack White's "work" will be shown to be lacking.

Edited September 15, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[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.

Like most non-digital photographers, West considers a photograph an "absolute". IT IS NOT.

When did I say that? Why do you guys keep making up opinions for me?

A photo is a compromise of

many values controlled by the photographer and darkroom technician. For instance, in b/w papers, there are five contrast

grades, as well as polycontrast papers with six filters. So CONTRAST is entirely controllable and not a "fixed" image. Many

other tools are available to a conventional photographer. In digital photography, the number of tools available is almost

unlimited. I can make prints of MANY contrast levels from a single negative. Contrast is NOT an absolute.

Of course it's not. I specifically said you altered the contrast, which is exactly the opposite of it being absolute.

What you seem to be forgetting is that you're working with compressed digital SCANS of negatives. It doesn't matter at all that you can make prints of various brightness/contrast levels from the negative, since you aren't working with the negative anymore. You're working with a copy of it that was made with a specific amount of exposure that can't be changed after the fact. And to make matters worse, you're working with a jepg copy. Jpeg is a lossy compression method.

West also does not understand computer analysis. The computer can change ALL variables to bring out irregularities. Changing

all of these variables, INCLUDING contrast, is one of the ways the computer detects anomalies, bringing out things otherwise

unseen, So accusing me of changing the contrast is a sign of ignorance...since that is one of the tools of computer analysis.

Let me repeat, I DO change contrast and other variables to bring out unseen things.

Duh.

Jack

Wrong Jack, I do understand it, you seem to not understand my point at all though. I'm not debating that changing the contrast can make things easier to see. I am debating WHAT you are seeing. You can't turn up the contrast until little specs that were almost invisible in the background are now solid white with sharp edges, and then claim that the sharp edges are evidence of anything. They are only evidence that you increased the contrast too much. Remember the image you just posted with the "stars" inside a crater?

[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.

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.

Wow, Thats quite a tirade there Duane. The online photos ARE all scanned copies. Some are made from the camera original film, some are from prints and some from duplicate films. Some have even been altered by both sides of the argument. Aside from a VERY FEW exceptions, they are all saved in JPG format. This format is a LOSSEY COMPRESSION scheme. Data is removed. Artifacts are formed. That is a fact of life. However the original film exists......

Many of the proofs that debunk Jacks garbage studies are based on established photographic principles which are beyond Jack's limited photographic understanding. Many of the proofs that debunk Jacks garbage studies are based on established science, processes and actual Apollo hardware which are beyond his limited technical understanding. It should be noted that all of this also applies to the work you present.

The problem for you, Jack and all of the other Apollo ct's is that knowlege and fact always trumps ignorance....

[Duane Daman]

"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."

That was a real swell, not to mention very long, tap dance there Craig, but unfortunately it didn't help you're case much, since the camera used for APOLLO 17 had a 70 MM lens with an 80MM adaptor which was used to photograph those WIDE ANGLE SHOTS, like in the "earth" above the "moon" photo shoot.

Once again you need to read the evidence I posted and then stop PRETENDING to be right when you obviously aren't.

"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...phy_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.

Edited September 15, 2010 by Duane Daman

[Kevin M. West]

"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."

That was a real swell, not to mention very long, tap dance there Craig, but unfortunately it didn't help you're case much, since the camera used for APOLLO 17 had a 70 MM lens with an 80MM adaptor which was used to photograph those WIDE ANGLE SHOTS, like in the "earth" above the "moon" photo shoot.

Once again you need to read the evidence I posted and then stop PRETENDING to be right when you obviously aren't.

"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...phy_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.

Also from that page:

"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."

Edited September 15, 2010 by Kevin M. West

[Kevin M. West]

The second quote about the 80mm is for the camera used in the command module.

[Duane Daman]

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.

Nice work doing what? Pointing out JPG artifacts? Priceless stuff Jim!

Lets address the shortcomings of your statement here, besides the fact that that your photographic knowlege base is non existant.

In this instance the use of a digtial copy of a analog negative is the SPECFIC CASE. The Negative was SCANNED and then the file INVERTED to produce the positive seen on the web. This is a fact Jim and it makes ALL THE DIFFERECNE in the world.

WHY. because its the SOURCE of the texture that caused the jpg artifacts you and Duane call "stars".

Of course the real problem the both of you have is that fact that the film, at the exposure values used on the moon, was not cabable of recording the light from the faint stars in the first place.

Of course you can attempt to prove the world wrong and show us the calculations that will prove that stars can be recorded on the film used the surface of the moon using full sun exposure settings. Why don't you do that for us JIm, and show us thatthis is indeed "good work"

There's no point in ridiculing Jim, just because he made a mistake about what I proved you wrong about .. It wasn't my mistake about those enhanced photos showing "stars", since Jack pointed out that I was wrong about that .. and unlike the Apollogists, when I'm wrong, I will admit it.

His comment saying you will never admit when you're wrong, is obviously true, since you just proved that with your latest tap dancing, smoke blowing nonsense.

Jim's remarks .. "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.".. applies to ALL of the photo studies that you, West, Greer and Burton will pretend to debunk in the furture.

I hope that clears up that misunderstanding.

Edited September 15, 2010 by Duane Daman

[Duane Daman]

The second quote about the 80mm is for the camera used in the command module.

Appatrently you can't read either.. The camera used for Apollo 17 had a 70MM standard lens with an 80MM adaptor.. It was NOT a 60MM lens, like Lamson claimed.

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.

Edited September 15, 2010 by Duane Daman

[Kevin M. West]

The second quote about the 80mm is for the camera used in the command module.

Appatrently you can't read either.. Where does it say the 80MM lens was only used in the CM?

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.

Apparently you can't read either.

Two of the 500ELs were identical to the ones carried on the Apollo-8, -9 and -10 flights. Each had its own Zeiss Planar f-2.8/80 mm lens. A Zeiss Sonnar f-5.6/250 mm telephoto lens was also carried. One of the conventional 500ELs, along with the telephoto lens and two extra magazines, was in the Apollo-11 Command Module throughout the flight. The other conventional 500EL, and two extra magazines as well, were placed in the lunar module. 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:

...

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.

Edited September 15, 2010 by Kevin M. West

[Craig Lamson]

That was a real swell, not to mention very long, tap dance there Craig, but unfortunately it didn't help you're case much, since the camera used for APOLLO 17 had a 70 MM lens with an 80MM adaptor which was used to photograph those WIDE ANGLE SHOTS, like in the "earth" above the "moon" photo shoot.

Once again you need to read the evidence I posted and then stop PRETENDING to be right when you obviously aren't.

How many things can you get wrong in a few short day? Even when the links you post prove you wrong you still somehow try and claim victory even though you don';t have the first clue what it is you are discussing.

The SURFACE Cameras had a 60mm lens Duane and some missions also included a 500mm lens. NO 80mm lens was used on the surface.

There was no 70mm lens. 70mm was the size of the film, which had an exposed area of 60mmx60mm. There WAS an 8omm lens, it was just not used on the lunar surface...where the earth shots were taken.

Giant hoax screwed the doggie, and you bought it lock, stock and barrel. You pushed it like it was correct information even though you did not have the first clue as is evidenced in this discussion.

But this exchange has been instructive. Once again I am proven correct and Duane Daman proven incorrect.

Ain't life grand?

[Dave Greer]

The second quote about the 80mm is for the camera used in the command module.

Appatrently you can't read either.. The camera used for Apollo 17 had a 70MM standard lens with an 80MM adaptor.. It was NOT a 60MM lens, like Lamson claimed.

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.

The 70mm refers to the film format (i.e. the width of the film), NOT the focal length of the lens. The lunar surface phtography was all done with either 60mm lenses, or 250mm lenses. As previously pointed out to you, the 80mm lems was used from the Command Module, for example when they were in Earth orbit. As has also been pointed out to you, some of the images under discussion show that top of the South massif, which is not same as the horizon the author calculated. In addition, several of the images he posed didn't even show the horizon.