Why is the forum accepting advertising...

[Craig Lamson]

OOOOHHHHH  ......

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That the best you got? Why not start with the easy one. Whats the temp on the moon, where?and when? And what would you expect the temp of the cameras to be?

Can you handle that one?

[Guest Stephen Turner]

OOOOHHHHH  ......

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That the best you got? Why not start with the easy one. Whats the temp on the moon, where?and when? And what would you expect the temp of the cameras to be?

Can you handle that one?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The temperature on the Moon ranges from Daytime highs of,130c= 265f

To Nightime lows of -110c=170f. Do I win a prize?

[Guest]

Reminder to all in this thread

Please keep it relatively polite gentlemen

[Craig Lamson]

OOOOHHHHH  ......

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That the best you got? Why not start with the easy one. Whats the temp on the moon, where?and when? And what would you expect the temp of the cameras to be?

Can you handle that one?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The temperature on the Moon ranges from Daytime highs of,130c= 265f

To Nightime lows of -110c=170f. Do I win a prize?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Correct, in a sense. Still the question as it applies to Apollo is where and when. There is no air temp on the moon. So are we talking about the rocks and soil? The astronauts suits? The exterior of the Hasselblad cameras? The film inside the magazine? The exterior of the LM? If so which side? shade or sun? Or which part? Reflective mylar or black? And since the sun is the only source of heat falling on the moon how does that heat transfer to say the film inside the Hasselblad camera? To say the temp on the moon is 265F or even 280f is a huge oversimplification.

Which brings us back the Mr. Clarks over simplified suggestion that it was too hot on the moon and it would melt the film in the cameras...because the temp was 280f.

Clearly its not 280f on the moon in the common sense in which we think about temps here on earth.

I'll let Clavius provide the explaination of why Mr. Clark was so clearly wrong.

http://www.clavius.org/heatxfer.html

Primer on heat transfer:

WHAT IS HEAT?

It seems an odd question, but a glimpse of the scientific understanding of heat is a helpful background to discussing operating in space and on the lunar surface. The average person's intuitive understanding of heat may not apply very well. What follows is a simplified discussion of heat and heat transfer.

Heat, put simply, is the vibration of molecules in a substance. Even in solid objects the molecules that make them up move around. The hotter an object is, the more the molecules jump and jive. When they are very excited, they will even break the solid structure and the substance then undergoes a phase shift from solid to liquid. Similarly when the molecular motion is too vigorous for the liquid phase, the substance enters the gaseous phase.

It's possible for different areas of an object to have different heat levels. The difference between the hot part of an object and the cold part is called its "thermal gradient". When a molecule vibrates it passes along a little of its exuberance to neighboring molecules. They too begin to vibrate but the original molecule now vibrates a little less because some of its excitement has been taken by its neighbors. This is how heat spreads through a substance.

The ability of an object to move heat from one part of itself to another is called "thermal conductivity". It depends on the substance the object is made of. Certain substances like metals pass heat very readily. That means when a metal molecule (atom) vibrates, its neighbors quickly begin to vibrate too. If a substance doesn't pass heat well, it can be used as thermal insulation. The surface atoms (or molecules) vibrate, but nearby atoms aren't as apt to start.

TRANSFERRING HEAT

Transferring heat from one object to another is as simple as passing the molecular vibration from one object to another. As you can imagine, the most basic method is "conductive heat transfer". Simply place the two objects in contact with each other, and the molecular vibrations from one object will case the molecules in the other object to begin vibrating.

The thermal conductivity of the objects involved plays a big part in how much heat is transferred. As a general rule, solids have the highest heat conductivity. Liquids have less conductivity. Why? Because in most liquids the molecules are farther apart than in solids. Since the molecules are more spread out, vibration in one of them isn't as likely to spread to nearby molecules. Gasses have the poorest thermal conductivity because their molecules are even more spread out.

When the transfer medium is a fluid (i.e., a liquid or a gas) you have a slightly different form called convective heat transfer. This is the notion of a "coolant" that "carries away" heat. Convective heat transfer is what cools your car engine by circulating water through the hot parts and then through the radiator where it is transferred to the air.

The air around us plays a big part in our everyday encounters with conductive heat transfer. The science of meteorology is largely based on the heat transfer properties of earth's atmosphere. The temperatures reported daily are the temperatures of the air at various places around the earth. The earth's atmosphere is the primary conductor of heat in our daily experiences.

A SNEAKIER FORM OF TRANSFER

Conductive heat transfer is pretty easy to understand. But there's another important phenomenon. Excited molecules release electromagnetic radiation (e.g., visible light, infrared light, x-rays, microwaves, or radio waves). This release of energy slows their vibration and helps them shed heat.

Conversely, when a molecule absorbs electromagnetic radiation, it becomes more excited and vibrates faster. It's easy to see that by using this mechanism objects can transfer heat between each other without even touching. This mechanism is called "radiative heat transfer". Objects transfer heat between each other through electromagnetic radiation.

Electromagnetic radiation includes visible light. We often see hot objects giving off electromagnetic radiation in the visible spectrum. The wavelength of light emitted depends on the substance and how vigorously it is heated. Most hot objects will emit light in the infrared spectrum. This is why infrared sensors are used in security applications to detect the presence of warm human bodies where they aren't necessarily supposed to be.

PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER

These two forms of heat transfer account for just about everything we observe relating to heat.

The sun warms the earth through radiative heat transfer. Vast amounts of electromagnetic radiation all across the spectrum travels from the sun and hits the earth. The various substances on earth (dirt, rocks, water, concrete, sand, etc.) absorb this energy and their heat level is raised. They transmit that heat through conductive heat transfer to the surrounding atmosphere, and eventually to us.

The daily temperature is reported as air temperature. On a pleasant summer day, the air temperature may be 80 F (21 C). But the various solid surface substances on earth may have been quite a bit hotter that day. Have you ever walked barefoot on dark asphalt on a hot day? It usually feels very, very warm to your feet. Since your body temperature is about 99 F (37 C), you know that pavement must be considerably hotter than that, perhaps 150 F (52 C). This difference in surface temperature versus air temperature is very important to discussing the lunar environment.

Place your hand near a hot object such as a pan on the stove. You can feel the heat from it, even though you aren't physically touching it. The air between your hand and the pan is conducting the heat between the air and the pan. The farther you move your hand away, the less heat can be transmitted that distance through the air.

If you've ever stood on a stage under full lighting, you realize how hot that can get. That's radiative heat transfer -- the same as from the sun. The very hot coils inside the light bulb send out lots of electromagnetic radiation which hits your skin. Absorbing this radiation heats your skin up, and you feel it as heat.

Microwave ovens are a special case of this phenomenon. Microwave radiation is part of the electromagnetic spectrum. It happens to be a wavelength that causes water molecules to vibrate especially vigorously.

Now in space there's no air. That means conductive heat transfer doesn't occur between objects that are not physically touching. Only radiative heat transfer can occur. This is important for two reasons. First, you can be very, very close to something that's very hot, and you won't feel a lot of heat. (Radiative heat transfer typically moves less heat than conductive heat transfer.)

Second, objects take longer to cool off. This is because conductive heat transfer to the atmosphere is the primary means for keeping things cool on earth. Objects in a vacuum can only get rid of heat through radiative heat transfer, and since that moves less heat it isn't as good.

FINDING A HAPPY MEDIUM: THE STEADY STATE

So we have two means by which objects can acquire heat and pass it on to other objects. In practice, any given object is both receiving heat and passing it on. If it acquires heat faster than it passes it on, it heats up. If it passes it along faster than it receives it, it cools down. An object at a constant temperature is receiving heat just as fast as it is getting rid of it. This is called "thermal equilibrium".

An object at equilibrium can still have a thermal gradient. Shine a bright light on an object. The side facing the light will be heated by radiative heat transfer. The shaded side will still be cooler. But as long as the temperature at each point in the object remains the same over time, the object is said to be at equilibrium.

A more complicated version of this example would be a concrete highway on a still day. The sun warms the pavement to perhaps 150 F (52 C). It would be hotter, but some of the heat is drawn away by the air on top of it. The air may be cooler because it's less dense than the pavement -- say only 80 F (21 C). But very close to the pavement it's significantly hotter. As long as the wind doesn't stir things up this system will be at equilibrium even though we can observe several different temperatures at different places in the system.

In space our ability to get rid of heat is limited. Since an object can only use radiative heat transfer and not conductive heat transfer, it will absorb heat faster than it can radiate it. That means equilibrium temperatures will be significantly higher for objects in a vacuum. The same concrete highway in a vacuum may be heated to 250 F (121 C).

HEDGING THE BET

Intuitively we know that things in the shade don't heat up as much. Without the radiative heat transfer from the sun, objects can only receive heat through conductive heat transfer. Since the vacuum of space limits how we can get rid of heat, the best way to keep cool in space is not to be heated in the first place. Fortunately the vacuum of space also limits how we can receive heat, so by reducing or eliminating radiative heat transfer to an object, we can keep it cool.

Intuition tells us that wearing a black shirt on a sunny summer day is unwise. White colors prevail in summer because they reflect away the electromagnetic radiation that heats us up. Similar principles apply in space. Painting something flat black would cause it to absorb sunlight and heat up. Covering it with reflective material has the opposite effect of reducing the absorption and keeping it from heating up.

THE KELVIN SCALE

We use the Fahrenheit and Celsius temperature scales for everyday temperatures. But since they have both positive and negative values, it makes them hard to use for scientific equations. And so when we discuss heat transfer we use a special temperature scale called Kelvins. The Kelvin temperature of an object is simply the number 273 added to its Celsius temperature. This makes all the temperature measurements positive.

Why 273? Because scientists have shown that at -273 C, all molecular vibration ceases. That is, there is no heat present in a substance at that temperature. Nothing can be colder than the complete absense of molecular vibration, so -273 C (or 0 Kelvin) is called "absolute zero" -- the coldest an object can possibly be. If that represents zero on our temperature scale, then no pesky negative numbers will clutter up our calculations.

http://www.clavius.org/envheat.html

Heat on the moon:

It gets up to 280 F (138 C) on the moon.

At high noon the average temperature of the lunar surface can reach that temperature. But that's not the same thing as saying it was 72 F (22 C) in Los Angeles today. The latter is air temperature. The temperature of various surfaces in Los Angeles might have been as high as 180 F (82 C). Air temperature has no meaning on the moon because there's no air.

280 F (138 C) may be the temperature of the lunar surface material at equilibrium in full sunlight, but it's not the temperature of any random object in a similar situation. Objects will be heated to that temperature only if they absorb the same amount of sunlight as lunar surface material, and also radiate it at the same rate. More reflective objects absorb less light and are heated less. Less reflective items may be heated even hotter.

Air temperature is not the same thing as surface temperature.

Just as on earth, the temperatures at morning and evening on the moon are lower than at noon. This is because the sun strikes the surface at a more acute angle and therefore isn't as intense. The lunar landing sites and times were chosen so that the astronauts would be working there in the early morning before the temperature had risen to its hottest. This reduced the surface temperature at those sites.

The physics term for this phenomenon is "form factor for radiative heat transfer". Quite a mouthful. The meteorological term is "angle of insolation" and it's why we have seasons on earth.

Photographic film melts at 150 F (65 C). Therefore you can't use it to take photos on the moon.

This would be a problem only if there was a way for the film to be heated. Since the film wasn't in direct sunlight it wouldn't have been heated.

The only source of heat would have been conductive heat transfer through the camera body, and only at the points where the film physically touched the body or a connected part. Rolled up on its spool inside the magazine it was relatively safe from conducted heat. Hasselblad gave the lunar surface cameras a shiny polished metal finish to reduce the amount of light they would absorb.

David Groves, PhD, has shown that the extreme heat of the lunar environment would alter the colors in the film used to take the Apollo pictures. [bennett and Percy, Dark Moon, p. 540]

Dr. Groves' study is seriously flawed.

First, Dr. Groves assumes that when NASA says the lunar surface temperature at the Apollo landing sites varies from 180 F in the sun to -180 F in the shade, this means the Hasselblad cameras and film also reached this temperature. In fact, the temperature of the lunar surface (i.e., rocks and dust) as quoted by NASA has nothing to do with the equilibrium temperature reached by other objects exposed to sunlight in the lunar environment. Since the film magazine was covered with polished aluminum it would have absorbed very little radiant energy from the sun. Further, Hasselblad confirms that additional shield plates were added to the Apollo magazines to enhance their thermal insulative properties.

Second, Dr. Groves assumes that the film was subject to constant extreme heat for an average of four hours, corresponding to the average duration of a lunar EVA. Since the only possible method of heating would be absorption from sunlight, this would require the astronauts to stand facing the sun continuously for four hours. But of course that's not what they did. They were quite active, alternating between sunlight and shadow, turning toward and away from the sun constantly.

Now a cold object placed in the sunlight will begin to warm. It will not immediately leap to its hottest temperature. Similarly, a hot object removed from sunlight will radiate away its heat and become cool again. It can take quite a while for objects to reach these various equilibrium temperatures. The magazine alternated between sunlight and shade while it was attached to the camera, and was stored away from sunlight when not attached. It is highly unlikely the magazine ever reached either extreme of its temperature band, which is not the 180 F to -180 F range quoted for the lunar rocks and dust. And the film itself was never in direct sunlight and so would have absorbed absolutely no radiant energy.

Attempting to simulate the thermal conditions of the lunar environment, Dr. Groves uses the only mode of heat transfer not pertinent to space.

Third, Dr. Groves uses an oven to heat the film. This is completely absurd. An oven uses primarily convective heat transfer: the element heats the air in the oven, and the air then transfers the heat to the material being cooked. But because there is no air on the moon, there is no such convective heat transfer. Dr. Groves has chosen the only mode of heat transfer which doesn't occur on the moon!

Without a fluid medium to convectively transfer any heat from the magazine to the film itself, only two modes of heat transfer are possible: radiant transfer from the inner surface of the magazine to the film itself (the amount of which would be small in this scenario), and conductive transfer from the magazine case through the winding mechanism to the film itself. This is a very limited path of conduction.

In any case, Dr. Groves' baking the film in an oven at 180 F for four hours is largely unrepresentative of the conditions in which the Apollo photographic film was used and stored. It is baffling to see such unsophisticated and flawed analysis issued under the guise of professional science. We struggle to understand how even the most basic principles of thermodynamics seem to find no place in Dr. Groves' study.

If film gets too cold it will crack and the emulsion will flake off. The bitter cold of space would ruin the film.

We can point out that conspiracy theorists can't agree on whether the film is subjected to intense heat or intense cold in space. But to answer the question directly we point out that the Apollo film was manufactured with Kodak's Estar base. This base is an extra-thin polyester (not celluloid) material formulated for high-altitude (i.e., cold temperature) aerial photography, especially photoreconaissance.

The magazine casings were coated with aluminum. While this would reflect away most of the light, it would absorb enough to keep the film within its operating temperature.

Edited March 22, 2005 by Craig Lamson

[Evan Burton]

Shanet asked:

"Why should there be stars in photos taken from the surface of the Moon ?"

Well, the answer is there shouldn't be any stars in the images. The exposure time and apature setting for a correct photo of the lunar surface and objects on it is too short for stars to appear on the film.

You can demonstrate this for yourself by going out and trying to take a photo under similar light conditions to the lunar surface. You'll find that the stars don't appear.

This exert from Clavius.org explains it all:

" A camera works by focusing light rays through a lens onto a piece of plastic film coated with light-sensitive chemicals. The chemical turns dark when light strikes it. The more light, the darker it gets. In the developing lab the film is chemically processed to disable the light sensitivity, so that it can be handled in the light. The result is a photographic negative. When light is shone through the negative onto light-sensitive paper, it produces a normal image.

Photographic film is manufactured in varying degrees of sensitivity. Film that is intended for use in sunlight, for example, is not usually sensitive enough for pictures in dimmer indoor lighting. In that case, the photographer must use a flash to supplement the available light.

Two mechanisms in the camera control how much light falls on the film. There is an aperture, a device very much like the iris in a human eye, which expands or constricts to allow more or less light to pass through to the film. Photographers call the aperture setting the "f-stop". The higher the f-stop number, the narrower the aperture and the less light admitted.

There is also a timer which controls how long the shutter remains open. The longer the shutter interval, the more light falls on the film. Photographers state shutter speeds in fractions of a second, such as 1/250.

The technique of manipulating these mechanisms to produce meaningful photographs is called exposure. Since each of the three ways of controlling exposure (film sensitivity, f-stop, shutter speed) has its own side effects, the photographer must decide what's most important. Very sensitive film is usually unable to record fine-grain details. Opening the aperture limits how much of the image will be in focus. Using a long shutter interval may blur the photograph if the subject moves while the shutter is open.

A photograph taken with insufficient light is underexposed, while a photograph taken with too much light is overexposed. Underexposed photographs usually have coarsely-grained variations on a dark color. Overexposed images have patches of white, often bleeding into adjacent areas of the photograph.

Newer cameras have light meters that measure the amount of light entering the lens and computers that calculate the correct exposure, taking into account whether a fast or slow shutter speed is better, or whether a wide or narrow aperture is appropriate. However, even with automatic exposure photographs sometimes come out overexposed or underexposed. This happens when different parts of the picture have different amounts of light on them. The computer reads an average amount of light and sets the exposure accordingly.

For example, if you take a picture of someone who is standing under the porch of a brightly lit house, chances are the house will be correctly exposed but the subject will be a dark silhouette. The computer has no way of knowing that you want your friend in the shadow to be correctly exposed. In this situation you would adjust your exposure to allow more light to enter. The house portion of the photograph will be overexposed, but your friend will look good in the photograph.

The human eye works according to similar principles. It has an iris which opens and closes like a camera aperture. It has a retina which corresponds to photographic film. The human retina changes chemically to adjust adjust sensitivity. There is no feature that corresponds to the shutter speed.

When you go into a dark room after you've just been outside, you have to wait until your irises open and your retinas adjusts chemically. Irises open in seconds, but the retina's chemical changes take a few minutes. Until then, everything looks dark. And conversely when you go back outside, the sun will appear painfully bright until your irises contract and your retinas adjust.

Photography on the lunar surface presents two problems. First, the sunlight is quite bright. The moon is roughly as far away from the sun as the earth, but there is no atmosphere to filter and subdue the sunlight. And along with this is the glare of the sun off the lunar surface.

Second, the difference between light and shadow is more pronounced on the moon since there is no atmosphere to scatter the sunlight and make it more uniform.

Fortunately neither of these problems is unsolvable. A brightly lit scene can be correctly photographed simply by using less sensitive film, and also by closing the aperture and using a faster shutter speed. In extreme cases you can also put a filter (sunglasses for cameras) over the lens to reduce the light entering the lens.

But what about shadow? Well, objects lying in shadow on the lunar surface are not in pitch blackness. Light reflects from space suits, the lunar module, the dust around you. You can open up the aperture and lengthen the shutter speed if the subject you want to capture is in shadow.

A curious feature of photographic film is that it's not necessarily sensitive the same way your eyes are. Manufacturers produce film that is variably sensitive. An extreme example of this was the film invented to photograph nuclear detonations. It is possible to have film that emphasizes subtle differences among darks while representing brights with relative indifference.

In short, the notions that it's too bright on the moon for photography, or that photographic film can't capture both lighted and shaded objects on the moon, are simply not realistic from the photographer's point of view. "

[Evan Burton]

Shanet also asked about astronauts not leaping very high. Clavius also answers that one:

Why don't the astronauts jump any higher than they would be able to on earth?

Who says they couldn't? Just because they generally didn't doesn't mean they weren't able to.

Neil Armstrong reported that he was able to jump to the third step of the lunar module ladder, which he estimated to be five or six feet from the lunar surface (Reports 11b, 89). "I did some fairly high jumps," said Armstrong, "and found that there was a tendency to tip over backward on a high jump. One time I came close to falling and decided that was enough of that" (Ibid, 76). Falling over backward would risk damaging the PLSS.

The PLSS is the Portable Life Support System, the large backpack they had on.

[Craig Lamson]

Shanet asked:

"Why should there be stars in photos taken from the surface of the Moon ?"

Well, the answer is there shouldn't be any stars in the images.  The exposure time and apature setting for a correct photo of the lunar surface and objects on it is too short for stars to appear on the film.

You can demonstrate this for yourself by going out and trying to take a photo under similar light conditions to the lunar surface.  You'll find that the stars don't appear.

This exert from Clavius.org explains it all:

" A camera works by focusing light rays through a lens onto a piece of plastic film coated with light-sensitive chemicals. The chemical turns dark when light strikes it. The more light, the darker it gets. In the developing lab the film is chemically processed to disable the light sensitivity, so that it can be handled in the light. The result is a photographic negative. When light is shone through the negative onto light-sensitive paper, it produces a normal image.

Photographic film is manufactured in varying degrees of sensitivity. Film that is intended for use in sunlight, for example, is not usually sensitive enough for pictures in dimmer indoor lighting. In that case, the photographer must use a flash to supplement the available light.

Two mechanisms in the camera control how much light falls on the film. There is an aperture, a device very much like the iris in a human eye, which expands or constricts to allow more or less light to pass through to the film. Photographers call the aperture setting the "f-stop". The higher the f-stop number, the narrower the aperture and the less light admitted.

There is also a timer which controls how long the shutter remains open. The longer the shutter interval, the more light falls on the film. Photographers state shutter speeds in fractions of a second, such as 1/250.

The technique of manipulating these mechanisms to produce meaningful photographs is called exposure. Since each of the three ways of controlling exposure (film sensitivity, f-stop, shutter speed) has its own side effects, the photographer must decide what's most important. Very sensitive film is usually unable to record fine-grain details. Opening the aperture limits how much of the image will be in focus. Using a long shutter interval may blur the photograph if the subject moves while the shutter is open.

A photograph taken with insufficient light is underexposed, while a photograph taken with too much light is overexposed. Underexposed photographs usually have coarsely-grained variations on a dark color. Overexposed images have patches of white, often bleeding into adjacent areas of the photograph.

Newer cameras have light meters that measure the amount of light entering the lens and computers that calculate the correct exposure, taking into account whether a fast or slow shutter speed is better, or whether a wide or narrow aperture is appropriate. However, even with automatic exposure photographs sometimes come out overexposed or underexposed. This happens when different parts of the picture have different amounts of light on them. The computer reads an average amount of light and sets the exposure accordingly.

For example, if you take a picture of someone who is standing under the porch of a brightly lit house, chances are the house will be correctly exposed but the subject will be a dark silhouette. The computer has no way of knowing that you want your friend in the shadow to be correctly exposed. In this situation you would adjust your exposure to allow more light to enter. The house portion of the photograph will be overexposed, but your friend will look good in the photograph.

The human eye works according to similar principles. It has an iris which opens and closes like a camera aperture. It has a retina which corresponds to photographic film. The human retina changes chemically to adjust adjust sensitivity. There is no feature that corresponds to the shutter speed.

When you go into a dark room after you've just been outside, you have to wait until your irises open and your retinas adjusts chemically. Irises open in seconds, but the retina's chemical changes take a few minutes. Until then, everything looks dark. And conversely when you go back outside, the sun will appear painfully bright until your irises contract and your retinas adjust.

Photography on the lunar surface presents two problems. First, the sunlight is quite bright. The moon is roughly as far away from the sun as the earth, but there is no atmosphere to filter and subdue the sunlight. And along with this is the glare of the sun off the lunar surface.

Second, the difference between light and shadow is more pronounced on the moon since there is no atmosphere to scatter the sunlight and make it more uniform.

Fortunately neither of these problems is unsolvable. A brightly lit scene can be correctly photographed simply by using less sensitive film, and also by closing the aperture and using a faster shutter speed. In extreme cases you can also put a filter (sunglasses for cameras) over the lens to reduce the light entering the lens.

But what about shadow? Well, objects lying in shadow on the lunar surface are not in pitch blackness. Light reflects from space suits, the lunar module, the dust around you. You can open up the aperture and lengthen the shutter speed if the subject you want to capture is in shadow.

A curious feature of photographic film is that it's not necessarily sensitive the same way your eyes are. Manufacturers produce film that is variably sensitive. An extreme example of this was the film invented to photograph nuclear detonations. It is possible to have film that emphasizes subtle differences among darks while representing brights with relative indifference.

In short, the notions that it's too bright on the moon for photography, or that photographic film can't capture both lighted and shaded objects on the moon, are simply not realistic from the photographer's point of view. "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly. The no stars argument is perhaps one of the very easiest of all of the hoaxers claims to actually test. Anyone with an adjustable camera can do the test. Many have and so have I.

The problem with trying to get stars to record on film using any of the daylight camera settings used in the Apollo images is that the faint stars (in relation to the bright sun) do not provide enough light to overcome the threshold of exposure on the film. Put simply they are not bright enough to record. The exposure times required to get the stars to just begin to become exposed on film are many many times what is required to properly record dayling lit scenes.

For example it may take up to 2 seconds of exposure time at the widest fstop opening of the Hasselblad for a star to even begin to break into recording on film. Using a two second expossure wide open in daylight would grossly overexpose the daylight areas of the photo.

But again this is very easy to test. I suggest that anyone who wants to know for sure do just that.

But rest assured that the hoaxers claim that there should be stars in the Apollo images is totally without merit.

I love telescopes and have three large scopes which I use on a regular basis. I also like trying my hand at astro photography. In the pursuit of this pastime I have discovered many websites that deal with photographing stars. I would suggest that anyone interested in the process of photographing stars do a simple google on the subject. The results will bear out that the exposure required to record stars on film is much greater than any of the daylight setting on the lunar Hasselblad cameras would allow.

Edited March 23, 2005 by Craig Lamson

[Shanet Clark]

Reminder to all in this thread

Please keep it relatively polite gentlemen

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Interesting material on the heat transfer.

Here is the case for seriously considering Jack White's line of thinking:

Take an overheated Nuclear Arms race and universal Cold War, to start.

Consider the entire APOLLO project as what it really was, a propaganda effort and large scale psychological operation (this is true whether they went to the MOON or not). Consider the reluctance of US agencies to release any photo with military or strategic interest, broadly defined. Look at all the releasesd images as a closely managed public relations and international propaganda effort.

Now strap a camera to your chest, put a fishbowl over your head and heavy mittens on your hands.

Return with a series of perfectly exposed and perfectly focused pictures of a bowl shaped Moon surface. Some of these photos are taken from about two feet above the surface, some more like ten feet above the surface.

No one ever jumps into the air on film, despite being free of earth's gravity.

There is no sign of a blast or pressure directly under the retro rockets.

There is a brass ring visible where the flag was screwed into its base.

If the astronauts actually went to the Moon, the film would have been strategically priceless and never publicly released.

Micro meteorites and Van Allen radiation round out the argument....

Finally, it was imperative that they have a good picture of the little placque they placed on the MOON, so I find the differences between these two exposures absolutely uncanny, taken as they were by individuals with giant fishbowls, mittens and a camera strapped to their chest>>>

And of course many of the Shadows and POV's make no sense whatsoever:

Were they really on their knees for this one, great focusing, too....

Then you have the shadows, pesky shadows....

So if you are concerned that we are impugning the work of the (old Nazi) space scientists or the handsome young NASA guinea pigs, fear not, I am not impugning these characters. NASA may have gone to the Moon AND faked a photographic file........

Critical rational approaches to COLD WAR aeronautics, secret rocketry projects, and highly classified projects with a vast propagnada impact, critical approaches to this unusual series of events are proper and healthy.

Edited March 24, 2005 by Shanet Clark

[Evan Burton]

Take an overheated Nuclear Arms race and universal Cold War, to start.

Consider the entire APOLLO project as what it really was, a propaganda effort and large scale psychological operation (this is true whether they went to the MOON or not). Consider the reluctance of US agencies to release any photo with military or strategic interest, broadly defined. Look at all the releasesd images as a closely managed public relations and international propaganda effort.

It's hard to try and argue about the reasons for the Apollo missions, because although I disagree it is was a psychological operation, it was most certainly propaganda. The US wanted to prove their technical superiority over the USSR. Conducting a successful lunar programme under media scrutiny also sent a message about the different political systems.

There was initial reluctance to release space-based views of the earth because this was at a time when the US was putting their first photo-reconsats into orbit. As the technology improved (better resolution, improved image transfer methods, radar imaging, etc), NASA could release the overhead imagry because it no longer had any effect on national technical means. Additionally, other sats were going up into orbit (e.g. LANDSAT) so NASA and the military were no longer a sole source of overhead imagry.

Return with a series of perfectly exposed and perfectly focused pictures of a bowl shaped Moon surface. Some of these photos are taken from about two feet above the surface, some more like ten feet above the surface.

This is another common misconception. People see only a few of the best shots, so they ask how the images were so great. I explained this in the Apollo 11 thread (IIRC). Firstly, there were plenty of dud images. Naturally they don't get plastered in magazines or in books; they are still, however, available online.

AS11-40-5904

AS16-107-17482

Secondly, a lot of work went into pre-planning the camera setting and what images were to be taken. In the other thread I showed how their checklists told the astronauts what settings to use and what to take images of (in general).

Lastly - practice, practice, practice. They practiced until they got it right.

The images were mostly taken at chest height, although a few were taken from the LM 'porch' or from inside the LM itself. Also bear in mind that the lunar terrain is NOT flat, and so some images were taken from higher ground.

No one ever jumps into the air on film, despite being free of earth's gravity.

Actually, that's incorrect. There are both still and movie images of the astronauts jumping. The most famous is of John Young jumping three-odd feet off the surface and saluting ("Come on, gimme a big ole Navy salute...")

AS16-113-18339

Here is a movie (2.39Mb) of that famous jump.

There is no sign of a blast or pressure directly under the retro rockets.

That's another misconception. People think there should have been a big blast crater. Couple of points to note:

Firstly, during the final stages of the LM landing, the descent 'rocket' was operating at vey low thrust - NOT at it's full power. Even so, on each landing, you can here the astronauts talk about the dust being blown away from under the LM just before touchdown.

Secondly, the moon has a thin layer of "dirt" or "dust" under which is a hard surface. Most of the dust is blown away, and you see some scorching occasionally from the LM descent engine, but no crater is created.

You can see some of the effects in this image:

AS11-40-5921

Also see Clavius.org for a more technical discussion about dust and the descent engine.

There is a brass ring visible where the flag was screwed into its base.

I'm not familiar with that one. Can you give me some details?

If the astronauts actually went to the Moon, the film would have been strategically priceless and never publicly released.

I don't see how it would have been "strategically priceless". Perhaps you are thinking of the Soviet moon programme? The one that the Soviet government claimed didn't exist although the N-1 moon rocket, modified Soyuz spacecraft and lunar lander tell a different story.

Micro meteorites and Van Allen radiation round out the argument....

I'm afraid they don't. There was certainly risk to the spacecraft and astronauts from micrometeorites, but the risk was minimised as much as possible. For instance, the Gemini astronauts who did the EVAs had a different environment suit to their companions. They had increased protection from micrometeorites. Same with the lunar EVA suits.

Here is an excellent site that explains the various garments they wore, their history, etc.

As for the Van Allen belt, well, there was a radiation exposure plan to minimise the exposure. The spacecraft went through the thinnest of the belt in order to reduce the risk. Additionally, the spacecraft itself provided some protection from the radiation. Have a look here for more detail.

It's worth noting that Professor Van Allen, after whom the belt is named, disagrees with the hoax proponents and says that it would have been possible to travel through the belt.

Finally, it was imperative that they have a good picture of the little placque they placed on the MOON, so I find the differences between these two exposures absolutely uncanny, taken as they were by individuals with giant fishbowls, mittens and a camera strapped to their chest>>>

I'm not sure what your point is. Different exposure setting? Use of the camera? Could you expand on this? BTW, giving the ID number of the image (if you know what it is) is very handy in order to tell exactly which image you are referring to.

And of course many of the Shadows and POV's make no sense whatsoever:

Again, I don't know what your point is about this image.

Were they really on their knees for this one, great focusing, too....

Then you have the shadows, pesky shadows....

Okay. That image is AS11-40-5961. It's an Apollo 11 image taken by Neil Armstrong of the LM and 'Tranquility Base' landing site. That particular image, as well as others, is discussed here.

From that site, here is an image that roughly reproduces the same effect:

(Photo from www.clavius.org)

So if you are concerned that we are impugning the work of the (old Nazi) space scientists or the handsome young NASA guinea pigs, fear not, I am not impugning these characters. NASA may have gone to the Moon AND faked a photographic file........

Critical rational approaches to COLD WAR aeronautics, secret rocketry projects, and highly classified projects with a vast propagnada impact, critical approaches to this unusual series of events are proper and healthy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, I agree. However, it becomes irrational when all evidence points to something being true and yet people claim it as false.

For instance, in your opinion, would it be rational to claim that the Earth was flat?

[Craig Lamson]

Well Mr. Clark viewing your reply in total provides ample evidence you have not done any quality research into the Apollo program, nor have you applied critical thinking in any manner to the “points” you have raised. Its clear you have not made an attempt to review the material at the link I provided and have once again went on your merry way, rambling on in ignorance about Apollo. Its also very clear that your point of reference is not discovering the truth about Apollo, but rather setting out to find “facts” that support your pre-determined conclusion that at the very least the US Government falsified the photographic record of the Apollo Lunar missions if not the entire Apollo program. To quote a friend of mine, Its not a good place to be.

Critical thinking requires an open mind, and the will and desire to investigate to the fullest any aspect of a given subject. In the case of your “work” as shown here in this forum regarding Apollo, none of the above applies to you. You give us speculation based on nothing more that your uninformed opinion on subjects of which you have a very limited knowledge. Your failures on the topics of the lunar temperature, film in the Hasselblad cameras, and stars in the Lunar images stand as a testament of your woeful lack of understanding in these areas. Its not a good place to be.

Interesting material on the heat transfer.

Shall we consider that as a concession?

Here is the case for seriously considering Jack White's line of thinking:

Do you need White to think for you? Do your research?

Take an overheated Nuclear Arms race and universal Cold War, to start.

Consider the entire APOLLO project as what it really was, a propaganda effort and large scale psychological operation (this is true whether they went to the MOON or not). Consider the reluctance of US agencies to release any photo with military or strategic interest, broadly defined. Look at all the released images as a closely managed public relations and international propaganda effort.

Irrelevant to the task at hand. The scientific, historical and photographic evidence of the Apollo program either support it as true or it does not. These CT sidetracks have no bearing on the evidence above. Apollo is perhaps one the most well documented and open programs in modern history. The material available to researchers is overwhelming. Please try and stay on track.

Now strap a camera to your chest, put a fishbowl over your head and heavy mittens on your hands.

If you are going to write about Apollo please use real facts. The cameras were not “strapped” on the chest. They were attached with a quick release bracket. The astronauts used full fingered over gloves with silicon finger tips that allowed a good range of movement and dexterity.

A good primer on the space suits: More detailed information is available on the web.

http://www.clavius.org/techsuit.html

In any case why should the suit worn have any bearing? For decades before Apollo, men in similar suits have explored the ocean depths. After Apollo men in similar suits have worked in space, repairing Hubble and building the ISS for example. The suits do not in themselves limit mans endeavors in space.

Return with a series of perfectly exposed and perfectly focused pictures of a bowl shaped Moon surface. Some of these photos are taken from about two feet above the surface, some more like ten feet above the surface.

A statement that is ignorant of the facts. The Apollo photographic record is littered with out of focus images, underexposed images, over exposed images, light struck images and up sun flared images. You can review the entire Lunar Photography catalog here:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/s

As anyone can see your statement is totally false.

The astronauts took images from inside the LM of the surface of the moon. They took photos standing on the surface. They took photos standing on top of hills and from the depths of craters. They had removable cameras, and they had knees that bent. The Photographic record of Apollo reflects just that.

No one ever jumps into the air on film, despite being free of earth's gravity.

Again a false statement.

http://www.clavius.org/gravleap.html

And the John Young jump salute:

http://www.clavius.org/jumpsal.html

There are countless images in the Apollo record that support the reduced gravity on the moon. You are in error.

There is no sign of a blast or pressure directly under the retro rockets.

Retro Rockets?

Anyways there is evidence, you are wrong.

http://www.clavius.org/techcrater.html

There is a brass ring visible where the flag was screwed into its base.

A brass ring? How in the world did you get to that?

Lets see what the flag pole assembly was made of and how it was used.

http://www.clavius.org/envflutter.html

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-usflag.html

From the transcript: Note the last graph.

[Next, Neil and Buzz will deploy the U.S. Flag. The flag deployment is not listed in either checklist. A detail discussion of the flag assembly and the decision to deploy it can be found in Anne Platoff's Where No Flag Has Gone Before'. The flag is stowed in a thermal shroud under the lefthand ladder rail as shown in NASA photo S69-38755. See, also, Neil's photo of Buzz on the bottom ladder rung, AS11-40- 5868.]

RealVideo Clip courtesy Robert Godwin (3 min 30 sec)

RealAudio File (4 min 13 sec)

110:06:29 Armstrong: Okay?

110:06:30 Aldrin: Yeah. I think that's there. (Pause) That end come off? (Pause) Want me to do that? I'll get the hammer. (Long Pause)

QuickTime Video Clip (1 min 20 sec; 4.0Mb)

110:07:01 Armstrong: (Standing between the MESA and the TV camera) Take that part? Go out here with it. (Pause) Right out to the rock, here. (Long Pause)

[in the 16-mm film, Neil and Buzz head out in the general direction of the TV camera, Buzz carrying the lower part of the flagstaff and Neil carrying the assembly consisting of the flag, the upper section of the flagstaff, and the crossbar.]

110:07:38 Aldrin: Wait, you'll have to extend that one. (Long Pause)

[The flag assembly consists of a staff and an extendable crossbar. These two pieces were joined by a locking hinge at the top of the staff. The nylon flag measures 3 feet by 5 feet and has a hem shown into the top into which the cross bar has been inserted. The flag has also been attached to the staff at two points.]

[Armstrong, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "We'll start here with the flag installation. It went as planned, except that the telescoping top rod could not be extended. Both Buzz and I operating together were unable to put enough force into extending the rod. It appeared to just be stuck and we gave up trying. So the flag was partially folded when we installed it on the flagstaff. I suspect that didn't show very much on television, but our still photographs should show the result of that."]

[in the 16-mm film at about 109:07:30, Neil pivots the top rod so that it is perpendicular to the staff.]

110:07:58 McCandless: Columbia, Columbia, this is Houston. AOS; over. (Long Pause)

[in the 16-mm film at about 109:08:00, Neil is now farthest from the LM with his back to the TV and they both seem to be pulling on the top rod, trying to extend it.]

110:08:26 Aldrin: (Garbled) (Long Pause)

[in the 16-mm film at about 109:08:30, the flagstaff has been assembled and Buzz is holding the flag by the top rod as he works to extend it.]

[Aldrin - "There's a photograph in the 16-mm (movie film) and one of us (Neil) is kind of holding the staff and the other's pulling the flag out. I don't think you can tell by looking at the photograph who's who. I don't know whether anybody traced through actions here (in the TV or the 16-mm film). And I don't know if I remember.]

[Aldrin - "We were trying to pull it out all the way?"]

[Armstrong - "It didn't come to its full length."]

[Aldrin, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "Neither of us could extend it. We thought maybe we could extend the rod by both pulling, but then we didn't want to exert too much force because if it ever gave way, we'd probably find ourselves off balance. I don't know how we'll ever find out what happened. I suspect this is just something that may, in some way, be due to thermal conditions or vacuum welding or something like that. It came out of its mount fairly easily. I thought we had a little bit of trouble with one of the pip pins (a removable locking pin) there for a while."]

QuickTime 16-mm Film Clip (2 min 21 sec; 3.6 Mb)

[A frame from the 16-mm film shows Neil facing the LM and Buzz facing the TV camera. Scan by Kipp Teague.]

110:08:53 Collins: Houston, Columbia on the high gain. Over.

110:08:55 McCandless: Columbia, this is Houston. Reading you loud and clear. Over.

110:09:03 Collins: Yeah. Reading you loud and clear. How's it going?

110:09:05 McCandless: Roger. The EVA is progressing beautifully. I believe they are setting up the flag now.

110:09:14 Collins: Great!

110:09:18 McCandless: I guess you're about the only person around that doesn't have TV coverage of the scene.

110:09:25 Collins: That's all right. I don't mind a bit. (Pause) How is the quality of the TV?

110:09:35 McCandless: Oh, it's beautiful, Mike. It really is.

[in the 16-mm film by about this time, the top rod is extended about as far as it is going to go and Buzz is holding the flag by the top rod as he works to extend it. Neil then takes the flagstaff while Buzz moves to the right and watches him try to get pole into the surface.]

[Journal Contributor Brian Lawrence notes that NASA photo S69-39815 was taken in the MOCR at about this time. Ken Glover pinpoints the time as 110:09:25.]

110:09:39 Collins: Oh, gee, that's great! Is the lighting halfway decent?

[in the 16-mm film, Buzz comes over and takes hold of the bottom, outside corner of the flag and tugs on it. He loses his grip.]

110:09:43 McCandless: Yes, indeed. They've got the flag up now and you can see the stars and stripes on the lunar surface.

RealVideo Clip courtesy Robert Godwin (3 min 44 sec)

110:09:50 Collins: Beautiful. Just beautiful. (Long Pause)

[in the 16-mm film, Buzz backs away again and salutes. He then moves back to the flag and grabs both the top and bottom corners and pulls while Neil holds the staff. Journal Contributor Bob Farwell has inserted a frame from the 16-mm film into a post-EVA pan which merges the views out both windows. A certain amount of artistic license is required to join the two window views and, as well, to fit in the 16-mm frame. The 16-mm camera is mounted at the top of the LMP window and, therefore, the perspective on the near surface is different from the Hasselblad images.]

110:10:16 Armstrong: (To Buzz) That's good. See if you can pull that end off a little bit. Straighten that end up a little? (Pause)

[in the TV picture, Neil is on the right and Buzz is on the left.]

110:10:33 Aldrin: It won't go up. (Pause) Okay.

[Comm Break, while Neil gets the flag pole into the ground. A frame from the 16-mm film shows him just as he finishes. At about 110:11, he backs away toward the north, in the general direction of the TV camera. In the 16-mm film, the flag extends to the right and, in the TV picture to the left. From the perspective of the TV audience, Buzz moves from left to right to the flagstaff side of the scene. A frame from the 16-mm film shows him in position while Neil gets ready to take two pictures of Buzz: AS11-40- 5874 and 5875.]

[Journal Contributors Owen Merrick, Brian McInall, and Markus Mehring call attention to the fact that, in high-resolution versions of AS11-40-5875, we can see Buzz peering over at Neil. In 5874 Buzz is facing the flag and saluting; but, by the time Neil takes 5875, Buzz has turned slightly to look over to see if Neil has taken the picture, possibly having lowered his right hand in the interim. Normally, the high reflectivity of the gold visor would keep us from seeing Buzz's face but, as Mehring notes, in this case "his face is directly illuminated by the sunlight from the front and at a right angle to the observer's point of view, so it literally shines through the visor, especially because he's sticking his head forward. At different viewing and illumination angles and with his head deeper inside the helmet and less brightly illuminated, reflections off of the visor that would wash out anything behind it. But in this case we're lucky." Journal Contributor Harald Kucharek has created an animated gif image (also available as a two-frame movie) consisting of frames 5874 and 5875 which clearly shows Buzz turning his torso slightly between frames, but without moving his feet. Note, in particular, the change in his knee positions. The TV record of this interval shows Buzz turning in Neil's direction twice during this interval.]

[Armstrong (Post mission press conference) - "We had some difficulty, at first, getting the pole of the flag to remain in the surface. In penetrating the surface, we found that most objects would go down about 5, maybe 6, inches and then it would meet with a gradual resistance. At the same time, there was not much of a support force on either side, so we had to lean the flag back slightly in order for it to maintain this position."]

[Later crews hammered the staff into the ground.]

If the astronauts actually went to the Moon, the film would have been strategically priceless and never publicly released.

Baseless speculation on your part. The evidence supports the position that the Astronauts did go to the moon. The original film is priceless, as it a national treasure. But the images have been released. Samples of the moon rocks were sent to countries around the world for study. While detailed hardware information may have been withheld that in no way indicates the lunar missions were faked.

Micro meteorites and Van Allen radiation round out the argument.…

Radiation: Clavius explains it very well in language that easy to understand. I trust it will work for you as well.

http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html

Micro meteorites:

A common and misguided argument. The suits provided for protection from micro meteorites. In fact its still a concern in low earth orbit missions during EVA’s . If it was a danger on the moon its also a danger in LEO. Is it your contention that the LEO EVA’s are fake too because of micro meteorites?

The Apollo suits were constructed using three layers, the white outer suit being the one to provide protection from micro meteorites and to reflect sunlight. It was all the protection they needed.

http://apollomaniacs.web.infoseek.co.jp/ap.../spacesuite.htm

Integrated Thermal Micrometeoroid Garment (ITMG)

This outer ITMG is for insulate heat and micrometeoroid, and connected to extravehicular visor, lunar overshoe. This is made by seven layered aluminized Kapton film, six layered Beta Marquisette, two layered Neoprene-coated nylon Ripstop, sandwiched between beta cloth. The knees, elbows and shoulders were protected by Chromel-R. On the left upper arm, a pocket for pens and penlights is stitched. And on the right upper arm, a pocket for sunglasses, on the right upper thigh, there is a utility pocket. On both legs, strap on pockets for data-list (left) and check-list, scissors(right) are stitched. On the back, for avoid wear with PLSS, Teflon patch was stitched.

Finally, it was imperative that they have a good picture of the little placque they placed on the MOON, so I find the differences between these two exposures absolutely uncanny, taken as they were by individuals with giant fishbowls, mittens and a camera strapped to their chest

This one has me puzzled? What’s the problem? That they took 3 underexposed images? That someone here on earth used a common photographic process to lighten the underexposed frame in the duplication process so it opened up the shadow detail? That the astronauts using cameras mounted on quick release brackets in full finger gloves were able to zone focus and work the specially modified shutter speed and f-stop levers? So what’s the problem?

The astronauts practiced for months on earth to gain the skill needed to properly frame photos with their chest mounted cameras. Zone focusing is a well know and often used method of focusing without using the viewfinder. The astronauts had exposure guides on their cuff checklists to provide them with camera exposure information. Labs routinely to this day make exposure corrections when duplicating slide film and when making prints from either original or copy negatives.

And the cameras were custom modified to allow the astronauts to work the controls:

http://www.clavius.org/photoqual.html

http://www.clavius.org/bibwgreen.html

As a Hasselblad owner and user and having seen the Apollo Hasselblads in person I am convinced they work as advertised.

And of course many of the Shadows and POV's make no sense whatsoever:

Only to you and the likes of White. For those with a decent knowledge of photography they make perfect sense.

http://www.clavius.org/trrnshdow.html

Were they really on their knees for this one, great focusing, too.…

Did they have to be on their knees to shot this image? I don’t think so. In any case its not clear from the transcript if the camera was mounted or handheld at this point but it is clear during this time frame that the camera was removed from the quick release mount. So what’s your question again?

Then you have the shadows, pesky shadows.…

They are only pesky to those lacking in a good background in photography, From his posts it appears White is sorely lacking in this department, you as well. This stuff is so easy to test and prove empirically its not funny. That its still an issue is laughable. But anyway here’s more information as to why you are once again wrong.

http://www.clavius.org/shad15.html

http://www.clavius.org/shad30.html

http://www.clavius.org/shad45.html

http://www.clavius.org/a11rear.html

So if you are concerned that we are impugning the work of the (old Nazi) space scientists or the handsome young NASA guinea pigs, fear not, I am not impugning these characters. NASA may have gone to the Moon AND faked a photographic file.....…

The only thing you are impugning is your reputation and perhaps your character.

Critical rational approaches to COLD WAR aeronautics, secret rocketry projects, and highly classified projects with a vast propagnada impact, critical approaches to this unusual series of events are proper and healthy.

I would agree but the fact remains your approach is neither critical or rational. And its also filled with mis-conceptions and downright lack of knowledge. That you rely on the works of White, which is filled with lies, distortions, alterations and disinformation speaks volumes.

[Shanet Clark]

I thank both of the members for their dissenting comments.

[Evan Burton]

If you think that there is anything you disagree with about the points raised, Shanet, please let me know and we can see what develops.

I notice that even though you support Jack's side, you are at least willing to discuss and debate the issues raised. I thank you for that.

BTW, what was the stuff about the brass ring? I think I heard someone mention something about it once, but I have no details on the issue in question.

[John Månestjärna]

Hi Shanet Clark, are you up for the challenge I posted in my thread "regarding the moon landings" ?

Which is the single point that you believe speaks the strongest against the authencity of the moon landings? And do you care to back it up with some actual research?

[Shanet Clark]

I haave summarized my position.

In a mentality of unconstrained discourse,

I find Jack White's strongest point

is probably the vantage point of the photos themselves,

the shadows, incorrect placement and orientation over time and photo forgery>

[ the whistleblower's anomaly] and I am most interested

in the points my fellow respected JFK assassination photoanalyst

and EDUCATION FORUM senior member JACK WHITES

approach overall as he presents on his thread.

However I am disturbed by the tone and unprecedented interest in our hypothesis:

Jack White needed a second opinion and I was there to second that member,

in the interest of

UNCONSTRAINED DISCOURSE ON THE INTERNET ..........

[ i.e. nothing to 'pologize for, commissioner.......]

[John Månestjärna]

I find Jack White's strongest point

is probably the vantage point of the photos themselves,

the shadows, incorrect placement and orientation over time and photo forgery>

I asked for your strongest claim. Not something put forth by someone else. Have you researched any of this? Anything at all?

All Mr. White does is compare two images, and claim that there is a anomaly. He has yet to prove so, which is the problem. You choose to believe him, instead of critically viewing the "evidence" he puts forth. Which under closer inspection fails, every single time.

I gave a simple challenge. RESEARCH the claim, and PROVE that it is in fact a real anomaly. I can prove every single one of Jack's claims wrong, I choose not to, because it takes time. Anybody can throw together a plausible claim in 30 seconds. It takes 5, 10, maybe 30 minutes to prove it wrong. I refuse to do so for every single claim. How many claims do I have to prove wrong to make the point that whoever made these claims hasn't done their research?

Why don't YOU prove that there is an anomaly?

That's the challenge. Are you up for it?