Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Evan Burton

Jack White's Aulis "Apollo Hoax" Investigation - A Rebuttal

Recommended Posts

Somewhere around MAR / APR 2005, Jack White published an investigation of some Apollo programme images on Aulis.com which he claimed proved that NASA had faked images of the Apollo moon landings.

Starting APR 2005, I posted a large thread of rebuttals to Jack's claims explaining where and why in each claim he was incorrect.

The Education Forum suffered some server problems in late 2005, and the entire thread disappeared. Let this be a lesson to you - if it is important, BACK IT UP. The Education Forum, like many other sites, can suffer disasterous problems which can lead to the permanent loss of data, a consequence over which they have no (or little) control.

Foretunately, many people had read the thread and saved it's pages - my grateful thanks to those people (you know who you all are!). I saved many of the images that I used - though not all.

Thanks to the people who were able to retrieve the data, I am once again posting the rebuttals to Jack's Aulis investigation.

THIS WILL NOT BE AN EXACT REPRODUCTION OF THE ORIGINAL WORK

Since my rebuttals, Jack has been asked by Aulis to withdraw or correct some of his original claims. He has also added some additional material to his investigation. My posts will generally start with the heading that Jack has chosen for each individual claim (i.e. LRVs Lowered Into Position), and each of my posts will rebut that claim. Please also note that since Jack's investigation is copyrighted, I cannot post the original claims here (unless, of course, Jack White - who is a member here - would grant me permission to post those claims). As such, correction or alteration to Jack's Aulis investigations on the Aulis website may take place. If such an occurance happens, my posts may appear to refer to absent or altered work.

Additionally, there were errors in my original rebuttals to Jack's claims, which were corrected at the time but will now appear incorporated into my new rebuttals.

Please be patient as this will be a "work in progress" as I revisit Jack's investigation, using old data when appropriate and researching new data if required.

Please enjoy and remember - don't take my word for what I say here. Look at Jack's work on Aulis, look at my rebuttals, look at the links provided, look at the original images, study the science behind the programme, and wherever possible - recreate the images yourself when something is claimed to be "impossible" to see whether I am correct or Jack is correct.

Edited to add:

P.S. Excuse my spelling errors.... I'll correct them whenever I notice them.

Edited by Evan Burton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LRVs LOWERED INTO POSITION?

Firstly, please give the image ID number. You have done so with some, but it is important that ALL images shown be given the original ID number so that others can check the image and confirm findings to their own satisfaction.

There are five images shown:

Top left (BW): AS15-85-11470

Top right (BW): Crop of AS15-85-11470

Middle left (BW): AS15-85-11471

Middle right (BW): Crop of AS15-85-11471

Bottom left (COL): AS17-137-20979

This is interesting. I can't see any tyre tracks in either of the B&W images. If we refer to the ALSJ (which I will refer to many times - please note the link URL), we see this is where they were prepping for the second EVA. They had come out of the LM, and were getting the LRV and equipment ready to proceed to the first site of the day. It tells us how they were loading equipment onto the LRV, and Dave Scott is trying to fix a fault in the LRV's forward steering.

We should note from the ALSJ:

[At some point prior to climbing on the Rover, Jim takes photos AS15-85-11470 and 11471.]

[in 11470, Dave may be about to drive a short way out from the LM to re-initialize the navigation system based on the known position of the Sun. In this down-Sun photo, we can see the ALSEP in the background and, on the Rover, the maps and 16-mm movie camera mounted on the accessory staff forward of Jim's seat, and the tool rack at the back of the vehicle. The umbrella-shaped high-gain antenna at the front of the Rover is pointed straight up, the TV is in its stowed position, the low-gain antenna just forward of Dave is pointed straight up. The small bag mounted on the back of Jim's seat is the BSLSS (Buddy Secondary Life Support System) bag ( 159k ) which contains a set of hoses and fittings which would allow the astronauts to share cooling water in case one of them lost cooling. Note the rearward fender extensions on both visible fenders. During the flight out from Earth, these were stacked onto the forward sections and, during deployment, the astronauts slid these extensions aft on guide rails until they locked into place. On both Apollo 16 and 17, the Commanders accidentally tore the right rear extension off by walking too close and brushing against them.]

[After taking 11470, Jim has taken a step to his left to take a stereo companion, 11471. The Solar Wind Collector is visible beyond the Rover TV camera. Between the two frames, Dave has driven forward perhaps 30 cm. Note that there is dust coming off the wheels as Dave maneuvers. At the front of the Rover, we can see the closed battery covers. In front of Jim's seat, we can see his foot rests. This picture also gives us a good view of Dave's RCU-mounted Hasselblad camera and of the wire Rover wheels. A high-resolution detail from 11471 shows Dave's Hasselblad, the DAC, the handcontroller, and the traverse map. Note the RCU bracket mounted on the back of the DAC.]

We can SEE that the LRV is driving forward, but no tracks appear! (Don't forget to look at the hi-res image, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...85-11471HR.jpg) I would suggest that this had to do with the fact that gravity on the Moon is 1/6 that of Earth gravity and there was only one person in the LRV. Not conclusive, but a viable alternative explanation.

Now, if we look at AS15-85-11450, there does not appear to be any tyre tracks either. UNLESS we look into the depression just to the right of the LRV. There you can clearly see tyre tracks. Once out of the depression on the lunar surface, they tend to disappear. Perhaps this is just the angle we are viewing them from.

as15-85-11450.jpg

AS15-85-11450

(Click here for a high resolution image)

AS15-85-11451 has a similar view. The distance is probably too far to show any conclusive evidence of tyre tracks.

as15-85-11451.jpg

AS15-85-11451

(Click here for a high resolution image)

However, please note that to the right of the depression, no tyre tracks show in either image. Perhaps they lowered the LRV into the depression, drove it forward a metre or so?

In my opinion: probably not. As you can see in AS15-85-11471, the LRV tyres leave a trail of dirt behind them. In areas where the surface dirt is thinner, that probably hides the LRV tyre tracks.

Not conclusive by any means, but it is an alternative explaination for what we are seeing. The astronauts walking around the LRV, and the soil coming off the tyres has hidden the tracks.

What about AS17-137-20979, the colour image from Apollo 17?

Well, this is interesting. Lets have a look at that image:

as17-137-20979.jpg

AS17-137-20979

No, no tracks. BUT WAIT! If we look to the bottom right of the wheel, running parallel with the wheel..... what's that we see? Is that a small depression that look remarkably like tyre tracks that have been walked over?

Yep - sure does.

I'd suggest that during the fender repair, the LRV was picked up and moved slightly to the left. We know it was possible to do this;, the astronauts occasionally had to pick up the LRV to point it in a new direction if it could not be turned in the space they had.

So what about other tracks? Was the LRV lowered into position by the "NASA fakers"?

One must ask themselves: Why LOWER the LRV into position? Why not simply drive it? The LRV did work; there are lots of examples of this. It was not an impossible engineering feat. So why lower it? So why not simply drive it into its position for the photograph?

Edited to add:

A fellow 'Apollogist' from New Zealand had this to add:

"Kiwi" wrote -

...this photo is AS15-85-11471 and the journal refers to it at ground elapsed time 143:03:52. The reason for no tyre marks behind the wheels is that Dave Scott and Jim Irwin have been working all around the rover, loading it up for their second EVA. You can see the change to a lighter soil colour beyond where the astronauts trod at the rear of the rover, and in the background are tyre marks from the previous day's activities.

Round about this time Dave performed a steering check and Jim had yet to climb aboard. However, you can see dust falling from both of the wheels, so what exactly is going on?

Context. Context. Read the text of the journal, compare this photo with the previous one, and it all becomes clear.

In AS15-85-11470, the top of the dark band on the rear wheel is between 11 and 12 o'clock, and the dark band at Dave's wrist is left of the dark handle on his Hasselblad camera. In 11471, Jim has stepped back a little and to his left so the perspective has changed, but we can still see that the rear wheel has rotated to between 12 and 1 o'clock and the band on Dave's arm is forward of the camera handle, showing that he has pushed the joy stick forward.

So what we're most likely looking at in the two photos is that in AS15-85-11470 the rover is stationary, as evidenced by Jim having time to move back and to the left for the next photo, and in AS15-85-11471 we are seeing the very first motion of the rover for that day. It has moved so little that it hasn't yet laid down a visible length of tracks in the stirred-up lunar soil.

A further indication that the rover is just getting under way is that in both photos the TV camera at the front is in the stowed position, showing that Ed Fendell back in Houston is yet to start work, operating it by remote.

The caption for AS15-85-11471 in the ALSJ's Apollo 15 Image Library says "Jim has taken a step to his left to take a stereo companion to 11470." I doubt this, as he would not have needed to move so far to the left as he did, nor would he have also stepped backwards to take the second shot of a stereo pair. He moved for some other reason, probably to simply get more of the rover in the second photo.

Thanks Kiwi!

Edited by Evan Burton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CONRAD LOWERED ON WIRES?

Firstly, this is a picture of Al Bean, not Conrad. The picture is part of a sequence, AS12-49-7201 to AS12-49-7216 taken BY Conrad.

Why aren't there any footprints to the right?

Simple. Bean approached that spot from the left of the picture, then turned around to get out of the picture. He was never to the right of where the footprints are.

Reference to the ALSJ shows:

132:31:47 Conrad: I'll tell you what we'll do. I'll stop right here and take a pan.

132:31:51 Bean: Okay.

132:31:52 Conrad: How's that grab you?

132:31:55 Bean: Because these rocks obviously came out of the crater, because they're scattered more uniformly around it. There's a bunch of them on the rim and there's not many far away. We probably ought to grab a big one of them.

132:32:06 Conrad: 74 (foot focus).

132:32:07 Bean: We're moving straight south now. (Pause) There's an interesting rock. Hey, that's all right; let's get it. (Pause) Let me read your camera and you can read mine, if you would. Help them out a bit down there (in Houston).

132:32:34 Conrad: Just a minute.

132:32: Bean: Okay, your camera right now is on 36. How about mine?

132:32:41 Conrad: You're 36 also.

132:32:43 Bean: Okay.

132:32:43 Conrad: Move.

132:32:44 Bean: Did you copy that, Houston?

132:32:48 Schmitt: Roger, we got it, Al.

132:32:51 Bean: Every crater you come to and look in, you see the glass beads. (I'll) move out of your way, Pete, (while you take the pan). (Pause)

132:33:12 Conrad: Okay, now. Back to rock-taking (camera) settings: 5 feet, f/8, 1/250th. Okay. All right, Al, where do you want to grab a sample here?

**********************

If you look at AS12-49-7208, you can see Bean's shadow at the bottom right of the image. At this time, he is moving / has moved to the spot where we see the footprints in AS12-49-7213. Bean is moving clockwise (left-to-right) relative to Conrad.

7208.jpg

AS12-49-7208

Conrad warns him to move (out of the shot), and after a brief interval, he does so "(I'll) move out of your way, Pete, (while you take the pan)."

AS12-49-7213 shows him moving out of Conrad's way (Hi-Res).

There are no footprints to the right of him because he didn't come from there. There are footprints to the left because that is the way he came from, and where he moved to.

You have to look at the sequence of images, and read the transcripts of what they were doing.

Looking at things in isolation can give you a false impression.

Edited by Evan Burton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Stephen Turner

Evan, good to see the thread back, it obviously represented hours, and hours of research. As I have a better understanding of this topic now than six months ago, I shall, from time to time ask questions, as I hope others will do. That said I have very little problem with the official NASA record, mainly thanks to your work in the original thread. I also hope Jack can be persuaded to defend his Aulis presentation. Steve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also hope Jack can be persuaded to defend his Aulis presentation. Steve.

I doubt he will, but the offer is always there.

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

APOLLO 11 10X8 PRINTS IN APOLLO 15 PHOTO

This is one of the more ridiculous claims. The "photos" are actually a piece of packing material (foil) used in the Scientific Equipment (SEQ) Bay. The main image Jack uses is AS15-87-1183 (link to Hi-Res image).

The ALSJ notes this:

[Jim moved to a spot southeast of the LM to take his third LM pan, AS15-87- 11822 to 11840. Readers should note that, for some reason, this is a counter-clockwise pan, a departure from normal practice. David Harland has assembled the portions showing the LM.]

[The down-Sun photo, 11822, shows the minus-Y (south) strut in the foreground. In the distance, Dave is standing at the right side of the Rover. Frame 11826 shows the effects of the higher sun angle on the view toward St. George Crater. Readers may want to compare this frame with SEVA frame AS15-85- 11375. Frame 11835 is centered on Mt. Hadley.]

[Frame 11839, shows the dark grey doors cover the Scientific Equipment (SEQ) Bay on the southeast face of the LM. The fuel cask is in the down position at the left of the doors. Note the wrinkling of the thruster shield. The fuel cask dome and removal tool are next to the minus-Y (south) strut. In the background, Dave has moved away from the Rover and is moving toward the drill site. Frame 11840 is similar.]

[Jim's last two pictures show more detail around the LM. Frame AS15-87-11841 shows the area under the SEQ Bay doors and, as well, the various deployment tapes used to open the doors and extract the ALSEP packages. Before taking 87-11842, Jim moved to a position slightly north of the minus-Z (east) strut to take a picture of the area under the Descent Stage. There isn't as much evidence of sweeping by the Descent Engine exhaust as there is in some other missions, particularly Apollo 12. See, for example, AS12-47-6907. Note the numerous pieces of trash that Dave and Jim have tossed under the descent stage to keep them out from under foot.]

Here is another view of the same material on the Apollo 15 LM footpad (note footpad at top of image):

11883.jpg

AS15-88-11883

Here are some examples of the packing material:

post-2326-1137764162_thumb.jpg

Cropped AS16-107-17436 Hi -Res

Jack has cropped out the other examples of foil in the original image used on the Aulis webpage:

post-2326-1137761985_thumb.jpg

Crop of AS15-87-11839 (Hi-Res)

The "photos" are actually a continuous strip of foil used on the LM:

post-2326-1137763099_thumb.jpg

Enlarged crop of AS15-87-11839 (Hi-Res) with highlighting showing strip of foil

In actual fact, though, there WAS at least one photograph left on the moon. Charlie Duke on Apollo 16 left a family portrait on the moon (AS16-117-18841).

Link to image of Duke family portrait as left on lunar surface.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NASA DO(O)MED?

This one is so silly, I'm not even sure why I am bothering to address it.

It's a lens flare. They are seen in many Apollo images.

From Apollo 17:

as17-134-20469.jpg

AS17-134-20469

20413.jpg

AS17-134-20413

And from Apollo 15:

11192.jpg

AS15-82-11192

Also look at these images:

AS15-82-11193

AS15-82-11194

AS15-82-11195

AS12-46-6739

AS12-46-6740

AS12-46-6765

AS12-46-6766

AS12-46-6767

AS12-46-6768

AS12-46-6804

AS12-46-6805

AS12-46-6806

AS12-47-6949

AS12-47-6950

AS12-47-6951

AS12-47-6952

AS12-47-6969

AS12-47-6970

AS12-47-6971

AS12-47-6972

AS12-47-6973

AS12-47-6974

AS12-47-6975

AS12-47-6993

AS12-47-6994

AS12-47-6995

AS12-47-6996

AS12-47-6997

AS12-47-6998

AS12-47-6999

AS12-47-7000

AS14-66-9245

AS14-66-9246

AS14-66-9247

AS14-66-9248

AS14-66-9249

AS14-66-9280

AS14-66-9281

AS14-66-9282

AS14-66-9283

AS14-66-9284

AS14-66-9285

AS14-66-9304

AS14-66-9305

AS14-66-9306

etc

etc

etc

Now, the Editors comments:

"The result is lens flare in the image. But that cannot be the case here because 1) lens flares do not have dimension – the object has recorded on film with a highlight at the top nearest the light source, and with graduated shading away from the light. 2) the camera used for these images was allegedly a Hasselblad with a pentagonal leaf shutter that would not produce a sphere-like result."

Dimension? WTF?

The Hasselblad wouldn't suffer from it?

Look at the above images!

Here is a link to Clavius.org that explains lens flare.

Our resident photographer, Craig lamson, had this to say about it:

The Clavius site explains lens flare very well. Just a few thoughts however on White and Auls. They both make a big deal about the leaf shutter on the hasselblad lens. This is a failed attempt to try to add an appeal to authority to their arguments, and perhaps to a layman it might be effective. However they are only offering up more disinformation on the subject of the Hasselblad lens. I find it amazing that White who claims to be a professional photographer and Percy who claims the same are ignorant of the facts about both the hasselblad lens and lens flares. Perhaps their disinformation is by design?

Anyways the hasselblad lens does indeed have a leaf shutter. That means unlike say a 35mm camera where the shutter curtain is right in front of the filn inside the camera, on the hasselblad lens the shutter is actually inside of each lens. And it is a 5 bladed shutter like WHite and Percy say. The problem is the shutter blades have nothing to do with the shape of any lens flares recorded by the film. During exposure the shutter blades retract fully from the optical path of the lens. They are not a factor AT ALL for lens flare. Disinformation on the part of White and Percy and it clearly leads on to question thier statements that they are both professional photographer or photo experts.

Now for the truth. There is a second set of diaphragm blades inside the hasseslblad lens and these blades control the f-stop ( redcuing the amount of light that passes through the lens to control exposure) and indeed this is a 5 bladed diaphragm. When you see a five sided shape in an apollo lens flare its coming from this diaphragm not from the leaf shutter.

Now for the flare itself. White and Percy maintain that a shape produced in a lens flare MUST have the shape of the f-stop diaphragm.( well actually they says the shutter diaphragm which is not true) For example they point out examples where the lens flare is circular and not five sided and call this impossible. Well that simply not true. A flare is a reflection between the various glass elements that make up the insides of a complex lens like the hasselblad lens. Some of these glass elements are positioned in front of the lens diaphragm and some behind it. A reflection between two lens elements in front of the fstop diaphragm will be reproduced on film as a five sided shape because the fstop diaphragm will block part of the reflection before it reaches the film. However if the reflection between lens elements occurs between elements that sit behind the fstop diaphragm there is nothing to block part of their shape and they are recored on film without the 5 sided shape.

Heres a link to the lens flare image I created in my studio. Ive posted it here on this forum as well in another thread. It shows both circular and blade masked flares in a single image.

http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=...40&forward=user

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Somewhere around MAR / APR 2005, Jack White published an investigation of some Apollo programme images on Aulis.com which he claimed proved that NASA had faked images of the Apollo moon landings.

Starting APR 2005, I posted a large thread of rebuttals to Jack's claims explaining where and why in each claim he was incorrect.

The Education Forum suffered some server problems in late 2005, and the entire thread disappeared. Let this be a lesson to you - if it is important, BACK IT UP. The Education Forum, like many other sites, can suffer disasterous problems which can lead to the permanent loss of data, a consequence over which they have no (or little) control.

Foretunately, many people had read the thread and saved it's pages - my grateful thanks to those people (you know who you all are!). I saved many of the images that I used - though not all.

Thanks to the people who were able to retrieve the data, I am once again posting the rebuttals to Jack's Aulis investigation.

THIS WILL NOT BE AN EXACT REPRODUCTION OF THE ORIGINAL WORK

Since my rebuttals, Jack has been asked by Aulis to withdraw or correct some of his original claims. He has also added some additional material to his investigation. My posts will generally start with the heading that Jack has chosen for each individual claim (i.e. LRVs Lowered Into Position), and each of my posts will rebut that claim. Please also note that since Jack's investigation is copyrighted, I cannot post the original claims here (unless, of course, Jack White - who is a member here - would grant me permission to post those claims). As such, correction or alteration to Jack's Aulis investigations on the Aulis website may take place. If such an occurance happens, my posts may appear to refer to absent or altered work.

Additionally, there were errors in my original rebuttals to Jack's claims, which were corrected at the time but will now appear incorporated into my new rebuttals.

Please be patient as this will be a "work in progress" as I revisit Jack's investigation, using old data when appropriate and researching new data if required.

Please enjoy and remember - don't take my word for what I say here. Look at Jack's work on Aulis, look at my rebuttals, look at the links provided, look at the original images, study the science behind the programme, and wherever possible - recreate the images yourself when something is claimed to be "impossible" to see whether I am correct or Jack is correct.

Edited to add:

P.S. Excuse my spelling errors.... I'll correct them whenever I notice them.

Question Evan--

I'm not much of a fan regarding NASA moon landing 'issues', nor photos/alledged photos of same. Over the years I've completed many photo/film/video assignments for the agency, NASA - Mountain View, Ca.

Has NASA 'officially' commented on any of these photo "issue - descrepencies"? If not, why NOT?

I'd like to know if there is anything on the record from NASA

Is it NASA policy to have unofficial spokespersons commenting for the Space Agency -- Of course you'll have my apology if you're a official spokesperson for NASA...

David Healy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Question Evan--

I'm not much of a fan regarding NASA moon landing 'issues', nor photos/alledged photos of same. Over the years I've completed many photo/film/video assignments for the agency, NASA - Mountain View, Ca.

Has NASA 'officially' commented on any of these photo "issue - descrepencies"? If not, why NOT?

I'd like to know if there is anything on the record from NASA

Is it NASA policy to have unofficial spokespersons commenting for the Space Agency -- Of course you'll have my apology if you're a official spokesperson for NASA...

David Healy

Hi David.

First off, I have no connection with NASA in any way, shape, or form - except my respect and admiration for its achievements. As such, NASA has absolutely no control over what I say - therefore I am NOT an 'unofficial spokesman' for them, and if they have any policy for such I'm unaware of it and it would not affect me.

The images and text from sites like the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal are all public domain, and as such are the best source available to me.

Now, has NASA commented on these 'discrepencies'? Not directly, as far as I know, but they do indeed mention claims that the programme was somehow faked:

The Great Moon Hoax - Moon rocks and common sense prove Apollo astronauts really did go to the Moon

The Moon Landing Hoax

Lessons of the 'Moon Hoax' myth

Why doesn't NASA officially respond to these claims? Well, at one stage they were going to. NASA hired science writer Jim Oberg to compile a book showing exactly why all the 'moon hoax' claims were wrong. When this was announced, a flood of complaints were received saying that the book project was a waste of money. The backlash from the general public and elected officials was so great that NASA was forced to cancel the book.

Should NASA respond to these claims? In my opinion - YES. I am not, however, a US citizen or taxpayer and so I have no say in the matter. My own opinion is that people should write to their elected officials and demand that NASA be allowed to refute these claims.

I've written to some of the programme's participants, and asked why they are not more vocal about these claims. In general, they say it is simply not worth it. Responses are misquoted or taken out of context, or simply not shown when it does not support a pro-'Apollo Hoax' stance (Bart Sibrel is a major proponent of this approach). Some have commented that people who are genuinely unsure tend to read the arguements, look up the science, conduct the possible experiments, and come to the conclusion that it did indeed happen as claimed. The die-hard 'hoax believers' will not change their stance, and no evidence will alter their beliefs - so why waste time trying?

Jack White himself has said as much. When I asked what evidence WOULD convince him that the programme was not faked, he said (here on this forum) words to the effect of: He would examine any evidence in support of the landings but since images of the landings were faked, any evidence in support of the images being genuine must also be faked so there can be no evidence to prove images of the landings are genuine.

[Edited to correct Jack White's stance on the Apollo programme images]

Edited by Evan Burton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

APOLLO 11 LIGHTING FROM THE WRONG DIRECTION

This is a common premise put forward by those who believe that the images are faked. There is a simple explanation for this, but it takes a little close scrutiny of the images, and you have to know something about the equipment the astronauts had.

Firstly, let's look at the image Jack has presented. You may notice that it has no image ID number. That's because the image is a composite image, made up of several images and put together to make one really neat image.

AS11-40-5863-69.jpg

Composite of images AS11-40-5863 to 69 by Ed Hengeveld

Now, the area of concern is Buzz Aldrin and the LM porch, so that's the image we want to concentrate on. That image is AS11-40-5863, and is shown below.

AS11-40-5863.jpg

AS11-40-5863

It is HIGHLY recommended that you look at the full high resolution image for this analysis.

We know that the sun is to the right of the LM. You can see evidence of this with the sun flares and streaks to the right of the image. Those flares also indicate that the photographer is STANDING IN DIRECT SUNLIGHT, and not in shadow. Take note of that, because it will become important later.

Okay, so the sun is to the right therefore the left hand side of the LM (where Aldrin is) should be in shadow, right? But it's NOT!? There MUST be additional lighting coming from somewhere!

Take a good look at the AS11-40-5863 image, especially the hi-res image. If there is a light off to the left, shining on Aldrin and the LM porch, there should be some shadows. The LM ladder, the LM leg and struts, the hand rails on the LM porch, Aldrin himself... if there is lighting coming from the left, there must be a shadow somewhere.

Take a VERY CLOSE look at the AS11-40-5863 hi-res image. Look at the thrusters, the LM hatch, Aldrin, the ladder & struts, the LM body. Look for a shadow being cast off to the right, as you'd expect with lighting from the left.

Are Aldrin's legs casting a shadow on the lip of the LM hatch area? Are the handrails casting any shadows on the same area? Are the tubes coming from the right hand side of Aldrin's PLSS backpack casting any shadows on his right arm, as you expect if lighting was coming from behind him (i.e. the left of the image)?

Is the ladder casting any shadows on the struts immediately to the right?

Do you see any shadows?

No. That's because there is no lighting coming from the left hand side of the scene.

BUT THE AREA IS LIT! So what IS causing that?

This is where it is handy to know some things about the astronauts equipment, and the environment on the surface of the moon.

Look at Aldrin's suit; pretty bright white, isn't it? The astronauts suits were deliberatly made like that so they would reflect light and aid in keeping the astronauts at a cool temperature.

Remember I told you to keep in mind that the photographer (Armstrong) was standing in direct sunlight? He's wearing one of those bright white suits, the ones that will reflect light. The suit covering is doing it's job, and reflecting away light - right onto Aldrin and the area of the LM hatch.

Can we prove this?

Take a look at the hi-res image again. Look at the areas that are lit. Where are they? ON THE SIDES THAT ARE FACING ARMSTRONG.

Look at the gold foil - where is it reflecting? Towards Armstrong.

Armstrong's suit is reflecting light onto the LM.

There are some other things to note:

1. The surface of the moon has a high albedo. This means it reflects a lot of light. It's also providing some additional lighting. Think about a night with a full moon; there is a lot of light being reflected off the moon, isn't there?

2. Image processing. When this image was produced, it is possible the processing was "pushed" so as to highlight as much of the detail as possible without 'washing out' too much colour.

See also the Clavius.org website about indirect lighting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank You !

David

Question Evan--

I'm not much of a fan regarding NASA moon landing 'issues', nor photos/alledged photos of same. Over the years I've completed many photo/film/video assignments for the agency, NASA - Mountain View, Ca.

Has NASA 'officially' commented on any of these photo "issue - descrepencies"? If not, why NOT?

I'd like to know if there is anything on the record from NASA

Is it NASA policy to have unofficial spokespersons commenting for the Space Agency -- Of course you'll have my apology if you're a official spokesperson for NASA...

David Healy

Hi David.

First off, I have no connection with NASA in any way, shape, or form - except my respect and admiration for its achievements. As such, NASA has absolutely no control over what I say - therefore I am NOT an 'unofficial spokesman' for them, and if they have any policy for such I'm unaware of it and it would not affect me.

The images and text from sites like the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal are all public domain, and as such are the best source available to me.

Now, has NASA commented on these 'discrepencies'? Not directly, as far as I know, but they do indeed mention claims that the programme was somehow faked:

The Great Moon Hoax - Moon rocks and common sense prove Apollo astronauts really did go to the Moon

The Moon Landing Hoax

Lessons of the 'Moon Hoax' myth

Why doesn't NASA officially respond to these claims? Well, at one stage they were going to. NASA hired science writer Jim Oberg to compile a book showing exactly why all the 'moon hoax' claims were wrong. When this was announced, a flood of complaints were received saying that the book project was a waste of money. The backlash from the general public and elected officials was so great that NASA was forced to cancel the book.

Should NASA respond to these claims? In my opinion - YES. I am not, however, a US citizen or taxpayer and so I have no say in the matter. My own opinion is that people should write to their elected officials and demand that NASA be allowed to refute these claims.

I've written to some of the programme's participants, and asked why they are not more vocal about these claims. In general, they say it is simply not worth it. Responses are misquoted or taken out of context, or simply not shown when it does not support a pro-'Apollo Hoax' stance (Bart Sibrel is a major proponent of this approach). Some have commented that people who are genuinely unsure tend to read the arguements, look up the science, conduct the possible experiments, and come to the conclusion that it did indeed happen as claimed. The die-hard 'hoax believers' will not change their stance, and no evidence will alter their beliefs - so why waste time trying?

Jack White himself has said as much. When I asked what evidence WOULD convince him that the programme was not faked, he said (here on this forum) words to the effect of: He would examine any evidence in support of the landings but since the landings were faked, any evidence in support of the landings must also be faked so there can be no evidence to support the landings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a lie. I have never said the landings were faked. I have always

said THE PHOTOS ARE FAKED. That is why Burton has zero credibility.

Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LIGHTING & SHADOW DIFFERENCES

Jack would have you believe that the images are taken "from similar lines of sight" / "from the same point of view", and there is a problem with the shadows.

Well, there's a problem but it's not with the shadows; the images are taken from entirely different perspectives.

Can I prove this? SURE!

Firstly, have a quick look at the LM:

AS11-44-6598.jpg

AS11-44-6598

If we stand directly in front of the hatch, with the ladder in front of us, you'll see that on the descent stage (the gold foily stuff) there is an American flag decal to the LEFT of the ladder, and the words 'UNITED STATES' to the RIGHT of the ladder.

See them? Okay, so now we have an idea what we are looking at with respect to which side of the LM. If the hatch and ladder are directly in front of us, we have a FLAG to our LEFT, and UNITED STATES to our RIGHT.

Now lets have a look at the images provided by Jack. We'll take the main image, AS11-40-5948, first.

AS11-40-5948.jpg

AS11-40-5948

Look at the LM. What do you see on the descent stage? The words 'UNITED STATES'. If you can't make it out, look at the high resolution image.

So the LM leg on the left hand side is the one with the ladder and hatch on it. If we were standing inside the LM with the hatch and ladder immediately in front of us, the image has been taken from about the 9.30, maybe 10 o'clock position (using the clock code, with 12 being in front, 3 immediately right, 6 behind, and 9 immediately left). The camera was pointed just to the left of the LM.

Also note the white post to the left of the planted US flag, in the distance. Similarly, look between the the left hand LM leg and the LM body. See the little white vertical strip? That's the Solar Wind Collector. The object to the far left of the flag is the TV camera.

Now, let's look at the other (teeny weeny) image Jack provided, AS11-40-5886:

AS11-40-5886.jpg

AS11-40-5886

Look at the LM, and what do you see? A decal of the US flag on the LM body. Now remember, that was to the LEFT of the ladder and hatch.. The LM leg doesn't have a ladder on it; that's just to the right out of frame. So in this case, the photographer was standing somewhere directly in FRONT of the LM hatch (12 o'clock if you were standing inside the LM), and they are pointing the camera wayyy left of the LM.

You can see the Solar Wind Collector to the right of the flag.

This composite panorama may help.

In the panorama, you can see the white post to the far left, then the flag, the Solar Wind Collector, and then the LM - with the flag decal on the left, and UNITED STATES on the right?

Now, think about where each of Jack's images were taken from, and the shadows make perfect sense.

Nearly forgot the Editor's comment:

Yep, that is light on his right boot.

If you look at the high resolution image, you'll see that the panels to the right of the astronaut have a small gap between them. The shadow isn't solid - the light is coming through the small gap between the panels. Some of it has landed on the right boot of the astronaut. Look and you'll see another crack of light further along.

Nothing strange about it, nothing sinister, nothing wrong.

Edited by Evan Burton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is a lie. I have never said the landings were faked. I have always

said THE PHOTOS ARE FAKED. That is why Burton has zero credibility.

Jack

Mr. Lamson clearly has never been exposed to LOGICAL THINKING.

Apollo photographs are FAKED, therefore the RECORD of the photography is FAKED.

It would be stupid to say the Apollo Surface Journal is genuine since the photos are NOT.

It is logical to consider the written record fiction since it is written about imaginary events

which did not take place.

Jack :)

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=36640

(My bolding)

Well, you seem to be saying something different in the above quote, but I'll edit my post to reflect you believe the photos are faked.

(Edited to add: I notice you haven't changed your post calling me a xxxx. I'll take that as meaning that the 'no calling someone a xxxx' rule is suspended for posts between us until one of the admins says different. I suspect the name calling, though, will be on your side only. Very easy to prove me wrong, however - refrain from saying it.)

Edited by Evan Burton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×