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

[Jack White]

Here's 33 things that need to be answered!

1)  Sceptics argue that the lack of stars on Moon photographs is acceptable, despite zero atmosphere to obscure the view. Yuri Gagarin, pronounced the stars to be "astonishingly brilliant". See the official NASA pictures above that I have reproduced that show 'stars' in the sky, as viewed from the lunar surface. And why exactly do you think there are hardly any stars visible on Apollo films taken from the Moon? The answers simple - Professional astronomers would quickly calculate that the configuration and distances of star formations were incorrect and so NASA had to remove them to make sure they could keep up the scam.

2) The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad's camera covering and produced poisonous gases. Why weren't the astronauts affected? 

3)  There should have been a substantial crater blasted out under the LM's 10,000 pound thrust rocket.  Sceptics would have you believe that the engines only had the power to blow the dust from underneath the LM as it landed. If this is true, how did Armstrong create that famous boot print if all the dust had been blown away?

4)  Sceptics claim that you cannot produce a flame in a vacuum because of the lack of oxygen. So how come I have footage on this page showing a flame coming from the exhaust of an Apollo lander? (Obviously the sceptics are wrong or the footage shows the lander working in an atmosphere)

5)  Footprints are the result of weight displacing air or moisture from between particles of dirt, dust, or sand.  The astronauts left distinct footprints all over the place.

6)  The Apollo 11 TV pictures were lousy, yet the broadcast quality magically became fine on the five subsequent missions.

7)  Why in most Apollo photos, is there a clear line of definition between the rough foreground and the smooth background?

8) Why did so many NASA Moonscape photos have non parallel shadows? sceptics will tell you because there is two sources of light on the Moon - the Sun and the Earth... That maybe the case, but the shadows would still fall in the same direction, not two or three different angles and Earth shine would have no effect during the bright lunar day (the time at which the Apollo was on the Moon).

9) Why did one of the stage prop rocks have a capital "C" on it and a 'C' on the ground in front of it?

10)  How did the fibreglass whip antenna on the Gemini 6A capsule survive the tremendous heat of atmospheric re-entry?

11)  In Ron Howard's 1995 science fiction movie, Apollo 13, the astronauts lose electrical power and begin worrying about freezing to death.  In reality, of course, the relentless bombardment of the Sun's rays would rapidly have overheated the vehicle to lethal temperatures with no atmosphere into which to dump the heat build up.

12) Who would dare risk using the LM on the Moon when a simulated Moon landing was never tested?

13)  Instead of being able to jump at least ten feet high in "one sixth" gravity, the highest jump was about nineteen inches.

14)  Even though slow motion photography was able to give a fairly convincing appearance of very low gravity, it could not disguise the fact that the astronauts travelled no further between steps than they would have on Earth.

15)  If the Rover buggy had actually been moving in one-sixth gravity, then it would have required a twenty foot width in order not to have flipped over on nearly every turn.  The Rover had the same width as ordinary small cars.

16) An astrophysicist who has worked for NASA writes that it takes two meters of shielding to protect against medium solar flares and that heavy ones give out tens of thousands of rem in a few hours.  Russian scientists calculated in 1959 that astronauts needed a shield of 4 feet of lead to protect them on the Moons surface. Why didn't the astronauts on Apollo 14 and 16 die after exposure to this immense amount of radiation? And why are NASA only starting a project now to test the lunar radiation levels and what their effects would be on the human body if they have sent 12 men there already?

17)  The fabric space suits had a crotch to shoulder zipper.  There should have been fast leakage of air since even a pinhole deflates a tyre in short order.

18)  The astronauts in these "pressurized" suits were easily able to bend their fingers, wrists, elbows, and knees at 5.2 p.s.i. and yet a boxer's 4 p.s.i. speed bag is virtually unbendable.  The guys would have looked like balloon men if the suits had actually been pressurized.

19) How did the astronauts leave the LEM? In the documentary 'Paper Moon' The host measures a replica of the LEM at The Space Centre in Houston, what he finds is that the 'official' measurements released by NASA are bogus and that the astronauts could not have got out of the LEM.

20)  The water sourced air conditioner backpacks should have produced frequent explosive vapour discharges.  They never did.

21)  During the Apollo 14 flag setup ceremony, the flag would not stop fluttering.

22)  With more than a two second signal transmission round trip, how did a camera pan upward to track the departure of the Apollo 16 LEM? Gus Grissom, before he got burned alive in the Apollo I disaster A few minutes before he was burned to death in the Apollo I tragedy, Gus Grissom said, 'Hey, you guys in the control center, get with it. You expect me to go to the moon and you can't even maintain telephonic communications over three miles.' This statement says a lot about what Grissom thought about NASA's progress in the great space race.

23) Why did NASA's administrator resign just days before the first Apollo mission?

24) NASA launched the TETR-A satellite just months before the first lunar mission. The proclaimed purpose was to simulate transmissions coming from the moon so that the Houston ground crews (all those employees sitting behind computer screens at Mission Control) could "rehearse" the first moon landing. In other words, though NASA claimed that the satellite crashed shortly before the first lunar mission (a misinformation lie), its real purpose was to relay voice, fuel consumption, altitude, and telemetry data as if the transmissions were coming from an Apollo spacecraft as it neared the moon. Very few NASA employees knew the truth because they believed that the computer and television data they were receiving was the genuine article. Merely a hundred or so knew what was really going on; not tens of thousands as it might first appear.

25) In 1998, the Space Shuttle flew to one of its highest altitudes ever, three hundred and fifty miles, hundreds of miles below merely the beginning of the Van Allen Radiation Belts. Inside of their shielding, superior to that which the Apollo astronauts possessed, the shuttle astronauts reported being able to "see" the radiation with their eyes closed penetrating their shielding as well as the retinas of their closed eyes. For a dental x-ray on Earth which lasts 1/100th of a second we wear a 1/4 inch lead vest. Imagine what it would be like to endure several hours of radiation that you can see with your eyes closed from hundreds of miles away with 1/8 of an inch of aluminium shielding!

26) The Apollo 1 fire of January 27, 1967, killed what would have been the first crew to walk on the Moon just days after the commander, Gus Grissom, held an unapproved press conference complaining that they were at least ten years, not two, from reaching the Moon. The dead man's own son, who is a seasoned pilot himself, has in his possession forensic evidence personally retrieved from the charred spacecraft (that the government has tried to destroy on two or more occasions). Gus Grissom was obviously trying to make a big statement as he placed a lemon in the window of the Apollo I spacecraft as it sat ready for launch!

27) CNN issued the following report, "The radiation belts surrounding Earth may be more dangerous for astronauts than previously believed (like when they supposedly went through them thirty years ago to reach the Moon.) The phenomenon known as the 'Van Allen Belts' can spawn (newly discovered) 'Killer Electrons' that can dramatically affect the astronauts' health."

28) In 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's the equivalent of a simple calculator.

29) If debris from the Apollo missions was left on the Moon, then it would be visible today through a powerful telescope, however no such debris can be seen. The Clementine probe that recently mapped the Moons surface failed to show any Apollo artefacts left by Man during the missions. Where did the Moon Buggy and base of the LM go?

 30) In the year 2005 NASA does not have the technology to land any man, or woman on the Moon, and return them safely to Earth.

31) Film evidence has recently been uncovered of a mis-labelled, unedited, behind-the-scenes video film, showing the crew of Apollo 11 staging part of their photography. The film evidence is shown in the video "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon!". and appears above in the 'Why Did Apollo 11 Astronauts Lie About Being In Deep Space?' section.

32) Why did the blueprints and plans for the Lunar Module and Moon Buggy get destroyed if this was one of History's greatest accomplishments?

33) Why did NASA need to airbrush out anomalies from lunar footage of the Moon if they have nothing to hide?

Written by Dave Cosnette. Updated September 12th, 2006

[Steve Ulman]

Two things-

1 - Jack, please delete duplicate post!

2 - John / Andy / Jack - please make the 33 questions a separate thread.

Thanks

Following added:

I've created the new thread 33 Apollo Questions, The infamous Cosmic Dave strikes again!.

I'm going home now - just thinking about discussing Cosmic Dave's garbage again has given me a migraine.

Edited November 8, 2006 by Steve Ulman

[Dave Greer]

Duane...here is one you and Mr. Greer can discuss. I started it

several years ago and never completed it. Maybe Mr. Greer

can describe how the rover tracks got in the b/w photo, but not

in the color photo. There must be an explanation, don't you think?

Jack

Jack-

This is one situation that it is critical that we find out what the photo Id's are. If they were indeed taked arouind the same time, there might be anomolies present. If they were taken at different times, then no problems.

This one might take a while to resolve. Stay Tuned.

Jack, I'll help you out here.

It's Apollo 15, not Apollo 16.

Find me the numbers and I'll give you the very simple explanation for these two.

[Steve Ulman]

It's Apollo 15, not Apollo 16.

Dave-

I wish you would have posted this before I reviewed all 2800 Apollo 16 thumbnails at the Apollo Image Atlas!

[Dave Greer]

Duane...here is one you and Mr. Greer can discuss. I started it

several years ago and never completed it. Maybe Mr. Greer

can describe how the rover tracks got in the b/w photo, but not

in the color photo. There must be an explanation, don't you think?

Jack

OK, I'll bite.

There is indeed an explanation - and a very simple one that took me 20 minutes to get to the bottom of - why it took you years I find somewhat curious.

As I stated, they are from Apollo 15, not Apollo 16. They can both be found in www.apolloarchive.com

The B&W image is this one AS15-92-12447HR.jpg

The colour image is this one as15-88-11866HR.jpg

Jack, the B&W picture was during EVA 2. The colour picture was taken during EVA 3. The tyre marks from EVA 2 have been obscured by footprints and dust kicked up by the astronauts.

I think it only fair that you properly answer some rebuttals before expecting any further answers.

It's Apollo 15, not Apollo 16.

Dave-

I wish you would have posted this before I reviewed all 2800 Apollo 16 thumbnails at the Apollo Image Atlas!

I think you should be calling Jack, not me!

[Craig Lamson]

.

I suggest that you and Mr. Greer discuss the attached photo. It is my favorite

to show "Apollogists" like Greer, Burton and Lamson. I have posted it several

times here. Burton and Lamson refuse to discuss it. How about you and Greer

talking about it? Thanks.

Jack

Jack, why did you make this claim when it is clearly not true. Evan discussed it in this very thread, post 142 I believe. As for me I belive I also discussed it in the original thread but since that thread is missing I can't offer any opinion either way...but of course neither can you. But in any case I have no fear of discussing this with you. For the record I believe it is a damaged piece of exterior insulation.

[David G. Healy]

Dave Greer' wrote:

Duane...here is one you and Mr. Greer can discuss. I started it

several years ago and never completed it. Maybe Mr. Greer

can describe how the rover tracks got in the b/w photo, but not

in the color photo. There must be an explanation, don't you think?

Jack

OK, I'll bite.

There is indeed an explanation - and a very simple one that took me 20 minutes to get to the bottom of - why it took you years I find somewhat curious.

As I stated, they are from Apollo 15, not Apollo 16. They can both be found in www.apolloarchive.com

The B&W image is this one AS15-92-12447HR.jpg

The colour image is this one as15-88-11866HR.jpg

Jack, the B&W picture was during EVA 2. The colour picture was taken during EVA 3. The tyre marks from EVA 2 have been obscured by footprints and dust kicked up by the astronauts.

I think it only fair that you properly answer some rebuttals before expecting any further answers.

dgh: perhaps, some think the astronauts simply raked the area?

It's Apollo 15, not Apollo 16.

Dave-

I wish you would have posted this before I reviewed all 2800 Apollo 16 thumbnails at the Apollo Image Atlas!

I think you should be calling Jack, not me!

[Jack White]

Duane...here is one you and Mr. Greer can discuss. I started it

several years ago and never completed it. Maybe Mr. Greer

can describe how the rover tracks got in the b/w photo, but not

in the color photo. There must be an explanation, don't you think?

Jack

OK, I'll bite.

There is indeed an explanation - and a very simple one that took me 20 minutes to get to the bottom of - why it took you years I find somewhat curious.

As I stated, they are from Apollo 15, not Apollo 16. They can both be found in www.apolloarchive.com

The B&W image is this one AS15-92-12447HR.jpg

The colour image is this one as15-88-11866HR.jpg

Jack, the B&W picture was during EVA 2. The colour picture was taken during EVA 3. The tyre marks from EVA 2 have been obscured by footprints and dust kicked up by the astronauts.

I think it only fair that you properly answer some rebuttals before expecting any further answers.

It's Apollo 15, not Apollo 16.

Dave-

I wish you would have posted this before I reviewed all 2800 Apollo 16 thumbnails at the Apollo Image Atlas!

I think you should be calling Jack, not me!

Dave ... I don't know if you realize this fact or not but your argument here about these two photos has made things worse for your case instead of better .... Granted they are two different photos , possibly taken at different times ( we only have nasa's word for this ) but where you really tripped yourself up was in letting us all know that the B & W photo ( EVA2 ) was taken BEFORE the color photo ( EVA3) .... If it were the other way around then the absence of lunar buggy tire tracks would have made much more sense .

As it is , you have now discovered that by nasa's version of the story of these two photos, that they were taken at different times , the B & W shot obviously coming first ... And then you attempted to explain away the lack of tire tracks in the color ( EVA3 ) photo as having been kicked over by the astronauts bootprints or as you claim now " obscured by footprints and dust kicked up by the astronauts " ... and all I can say to that one is .... YOU MUST BE JOKING ?!??!

If you look at the high resolution color photo of EVA3 again , you will see quite clearly that there were NEVER any tire tracks in this photo .... Quite a blunder on nasa's part , I must say .... especially sense they are claiming that the color photo was taken at a later time !

Look at the high res color photo again and you will see that not only are there no tire tracks or even any residual tires tracks from the previous EVA , but there are also NO TRACKS UNDERNEATH THE LRV ... and since it apparently drove up to it's position next to the LM there should be tracks in BOTH photos under the LRV , but there are not any in either photo .

These particular photos have been called into question by many other researchers besides Jack , and after careful analysis of them , the experts have concluded that both of these photos were taken by professional photographers for publicity purposes to be used for nasa's postcards and for promotional purposes ....

According to some of the professional photographers , this particular photo shoot most likely took many hours to block, frame and set up perfectly ... So if indeed the B & W photo was taken BEFORE the color photo , then the entire set area would have had to have been raked over for the next photo shoot . ... ooppssss !

Of all of the Apollo photos allegedly taken on the moon , these two would seem the most obvious as being completely staged for nasa publicity .

Apparently I made a typo on the mission number. While searching

for something else, I came across a study I started two or three

years ago. I did not have and could not find on my computer the

originals which had the file numbers. So I must have typed it wrong

when I originally started the study.

Jack

[Dave Greer]

After having taken a close look at the first photo that Jack posted here I will agree with Dave that the strange looking white blob reflected in the visor is the massif and also some of the foreground and LRV ..... But to give Jack some credit here , when I looked at the photo he was studying and not the high res photo supplied by Dave , the massif looked more like a blob of white paint on the side of the visor and quite unusual looking....

Duane

I'm glad you can see the reflections of the massif in the high resolution image - which goes to show once again, that when making claims of anomalies in Apollo photos, you really do need to look at the best quality images you can get your hands on. For the highest resolution on-line scans, I use www.gavsto.com/apollo which has a more user-friendly interface than the NASA website it links to.

It also highlights the need to look at photos in context - in this case, I quickly found nine similar photos taken consecutively, with varying exposures. The minor changes in the astronauts relative positions produced small but noticeable changes in the reflection - more evidence that it is indeed a reflection (if any were needed, as you can see part of the LRV very clearly in at least one of the images).

This is an example of why so many people dismiss Jack's claims - firstly he claims that there are no other photos that show this (I found nine very quickly, with consecutive numbers both before and after the one in question) - I then gave Jack the links to high resolution images, yet he still refuses to believe that what he is seeing is indeed a reflection. He would have more credibility if he admitted his error, and then claimed it was a reflection of a mountain backdrop. OK, he still wouldn't have proof of a mountain backdrop, but it is beyond belief that he cannot see the reflection in the high resolution images. The one with the LRV is astonishingly clear - I'll post a crop of the high resolution portion of the image here for clarity's sake.

It's clear that this is a reflection of the massif (and LRV in 20480) - and there are even HIGHER resolution images available, e.g. ftp://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ISD_highres_AS17_AS17-134-20480.JPG

But then I believe that most of the mountain backdrops looked highly unusual in almost all of the Apollo photos because of the lack of detail in them , never being the same texture or color as the foreground and most importantly the lack of depth perception which ususally occured in almost every Apollo photo where mountains are featured ... But the strangeness of the Apollo mountains is a subject which I would like to discuss at a later time .

Discuss it later we can - there are very good answers to questions you pose.

As for the black patch of material not showing up in some photos but showing up in others , not only is that a highly unsusal anomaly but after looking at the high res photo links posted here by Dave , I would have to agree with Jack ... Something just doesn't look right about any of the photos showing this black object .

It does not seem to belong in the photo but rather looks as though it was added at a later time ... Especially in photo number AS17-134-20483 where it looks at though it is suspended in air with nothing attaching it to the side of the LM .

I will agree with Dave's answer as to what this object is , a thermal blanket , but my questions would be these .... Why does it appear in some photos and not others of the same scene ? .... Why is it obviously such a darker color than anything else in all of the photos ? .... And in the photo I mentioned why does it look as though it is suspended in front of the LM instead of attached to it ? .... It is not only covering part of the scotched taped flag decal but it is also hanging in front of the gold foil on the side if the LM .

Maybe Dave can tell us if this thermal blanket would have been something which would have been moved or removed by the astronauts at some point ?... Othervise why would it be in some of the photos and not some of the others ?

Looking at the high resolution versions of these images, I've cropped the section under discussion, improved the colour levels and contrast to try and bring the detail out in this quite dark area. There's a link to it here - http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.greer70...mal_blanket.jpg

I can't see anything untoward with this piece of material... you can now see an obvious bend in it... the RHS appears to where it's attached to the LM... it's at a different angle to the insulation behind it, so the fact it's a different shade is no surprise as it is catching the light differently... I really can not see a problem with it, just seems like a wild goose chase.

As to it not appearing in some photos - I don't think Jack has provided any image numbers yet so can't comment.

[Dave Greer]

Dave ... I don't know if you realize this fact or not but your argument here about these two photos has made things worse for your case instead of better .... Granted they are two different photos , possibly taken at different times ( we only have nasa's word for this ) but where you really tripped yourself up was in letting us all know that the B & W photo ( EVA2 ) was taken BEFORE the color photo ( EVA3) .... If it were the other way around then the absence of lunar buggy tire tracks would have made much more sense .

Not at all. Of course the photos were taken at different times - even under your "raking over the moon dust" theory, they must have been taken at different times.

Look at the highest resolution versions available. Firstly the black and white one. Look at the area in between the flag and the astronaut taking the photo. In between the rover tracks, there is what appears to be pristine lunar surface.

Now look at the colour one, taken a day later. In this same area, we see planty of footprints, and plenty of scuffed up clumps of dirt - the surface is no longer pristine. Where you CAN still see rover tracks is behind the astronaut and the flag - in the same position from one photo to the next.

As it is , you have now discovered that by nasa's version of the story of these two photos, that they were taken at different times , the B & W shot obviously coming first ... And then you attempted to explain away the lack of tire tracks in the color ( EVA3 ) photo as having been kicked over by the astronauts bootprints or as you claim now " obscured by footprints and dust kicked up by the astronauts " ... and all I can say to that one is .... YOU MUST BE JOKING ?!??!

So you don't believe that the astronauts kicked up much dust while moving about? Take a look at this time-lapse movie taken in Apollo 11. See how the nature of the surface changes in just 70 minutes of activity on the surface. I've GIFed two frames form the start and end of the clip to show the point I'm making.

If you look at the high resolution color photo of EVA3 again , you will see quite clearly that there were NEVER any tire tracks in this photo .... Quite a blunder on nasa's part , I must say .... especially sense they are claiming that the color photo was taken at a later time !

Wrong, as shown above. There are visible tracks behind the flag, and the tracks in the foreground have clearly been covered up by astronaut activity.

Incidentally, you can even see video footage of an astronaut kicking up dust in this very location, here (from approx 2:50 onwards) and here. Every step produces a noticeable sparay of dirt.

Look at the high res color photo again and you will see that not only are there no tire tracks or even any residual tires tracks from the previous EVA , but there are also NO TRACKS UNDERNEATH THE LRV ... and since it apparently drove up to it's position next to the LM there should be tracks in BOTH photos under the LRV , but there are not any in either photo .

The LRV is facing toward us in both photos, so you'd expect there to be tracks behind the LRV, which you couldn't see in these photos anyway. And again, there is still the possibilty of tracks being obscured by footprints and scuffed up dirt, especially as the astronauts spent a lot of time moving around the LRV removing samples etc.

These particular photos have been called into question by many other researchers besides Jack , and after careful analysis of them , the experts have concluded that both of these photos were taken by professional photographers for publicity purposes to be used for nasa's postcards and for promotional purposes ....

Experts? Sources? Not David Percy?

According to some of the professional photographers , this particular photo shoot most likely took many hours to block, frame and set up perfectly ... So if indeed the B & W photo was taken BEFORE the color photo , then the entire set area would have had to have been raked over for the next photo shoot . ... ooppssss !

A completely circular argument I'm afraid.

Of all of the Apollo photos allegedly taken on the moon , these two would seem the most obvious as being completely staged for nasa publicity .

Not if you look closely at them, and have an understanding of the amount of disturbance to the surface just walking about on it produced.

[Jack White]

After having taken a close look at the first photo that Jack posted here I will agree with Dave that the strange looking white blob reflected in the visor is the massif and also some of the foreground and LRV ..... But to give Jack some credit here , when I looked at the photo he was studying and not the high res photo supplied by Dave , the massif looked more like a blob of white paint on the side of the visor and quite unusual looking....

Duane

I'm glad you can see the reflections of the massif in the high resolution image - which goes to show once again, that when making claims of anomalies in Apollo photos, you really do need to look at the best quality images you can get your hands on. For the highest resolution on-line scans, I use www.gavsto.com/apollo which has a more user-friendly interface than the NASA website it links to.

It also highlights the need to look at photos in context - in this case, I quickly found nine similar photos taken consecutively, with varying exposures. The minor changes in the astronauts relative positions produced small but noticeable changes in the reflection - more evidence that it is indeed a reflection (if any were needed, as you can see part of the LRV very clearly in at least one of the images).

This is an example of why so many people dismiss Jack's claims - firstly he claims that there are no other photos that show this (I found nine very quickly, with consecutive numbers both before and after the one in question) - I then gave Jack the links to high resolution images, yet he still refuses to believe that what he is seeing is indeed a reflection. He would have more credibility if he admitted his error, and then claimed it was a reflection of a mountain backdrop. OK, he still wouldn't have proof of a mountain backdrop, but it is beyond belief that he cannot see the reflection in the high resolution images. The one with the LRV is astonishingly clear - I'll post a crop of the high resolution portion of the image here for clarity's sake.

It's clear that this is a reflection of the massif (and LRV in 20480) - and there are even HIGHER resolution images available, e.g. ftp://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ISD_highres_AS17_AS17-134-20480.JPG

But then I believe that most of the mountain backdrops looked highly unusual in almost all of the Apollo photos because of the lack of detail in them , never being the same texture or color as the foreground and most importantly the lack of depth perception which ususally occured in almost every Apollo photo where mountains are featured ... But the strangeness of the Apollo mountains is a subject which I would like to discuss at a later time .

Discuss it later we can - there are very good answers to questions you pose.

As for the black patch of material not showing up in some photos but showing up in others , not only is that a highly unsusal anomaly but after looking at the high res photo links posted here by Dave , I would have to agree with Jack ... Something just doesn't look right about any of the photos showing this black object .

It does not seem to belong in the photo but rather looks as though it was added at a later time ... Especially in photo number AS17-134-20483 where it looks at though it is suspended in air with nothing attaching it to the side of the LM .

I will agree with Dave's answer as to what this object is , a thermal blanket , but my questions would be these .... Why does it appear in some photos and not others of the same scene ? .... Why is it obviously such a darker color than anything else in all of the photos ? .... And in the photo I mentioned why does it look as though it is suspended in front of the LM instead of attached to it ? .... It is not only covering part of the scotched taped flag decal but it is also hanging in front of the gold foil on the side if the LM .

Maybe Dave can tell us if this thermal blanket would have been something which would have been moved or removed by the astronauts at some point ?... Othervise why would it be in some of the photos and not some of the others ?

Looking at the high resolution versions of these images, I've cropped the section under discussion, improved the colour levels and contrast to try and bring the detail out in this quite dark area. There's a link to it here - http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.greer70...mal_blanket.jpg

I can't see anything untoward with this piece of material... you can now see an obvious bend in it... the RHS appears to where it's attached to the LM... it's at a different angle to the insulation behind it, so the fact it's a different shade is no surprise as it is catching the light differently... I really can not see a problem with it, just seems like a wild goose chase.

As to it not appearing in some photos - I don't think Jack has provided any image numbers yet so can't comment.

I have disappointing news for Mr. Greer. NASA HAS RETOUCHED AS17-134-20482 AND PUT

UP A NEW SCAN WHERE I GOT THE OLD ONE. The new one is of lesser quality, IS CROPPED

DIFFERENTLY, and the nails holding the black paper patch to the LEM have been retouched out,

I presume, because I can no longer bring them out with increased contrast and chroma.

I first became suspicious when Mr. Greer posted what he claimed was the same image I had

used. It did not seem so to me...I checked, and found the NEW SCAN. I first posted the black

patch discovery several years ago. Is the new scan an attempt to defuse the issue?

Jack

[Dave Greer]

I have disappointing news for Mr. Greer. NASA HAS RETOUCHED AS17-134-20482 AND PUT

UP A NEW SCAN WHERE I GOT THE OLD ONE. The new one is of lesser quality, IS CROPPED

DIFFERENTLY, and the nails holding the black paper patch to the LEM have been retouched out,

I presume, because I can no longer bring them out with increased contrast and chroma.

I first became suspicious when Mr. Greer posted what he claimed was the same image I had

used. It did not seem so to me...I checked, and found the NEW SCAN. I first posted the black

patch discovery several years ago. Is the new scan an attempt to defuse the issue?

Jack

Jack

I really don't know where you're going with this one, I can't make head nor tail of the text you've put in the image.

Here is the highest resolution version of this image I can find - ftp://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ISD_highres_AS17_AS17-134-20482.JPG

You can see that this is not a scan from a print, it's from the film roll itself. What you are trying to say with the "red-box crop"? Not knowing the provenance of the image you are claiming has been changed , it's difficult to comment, except to say that it's an ongoing project for NASA providing better quality scans of images. What the small dots you claim to be "nail heads" (!) could well be something as mundane as specks of dirt on a print the image was canned from. Like I say, impossible to be sure without seeing the image itself.

What we do know is, it ain't on the scan of the film roll... so it's highly likely it was introduced accidentally when the image was reproduced.

[Jack White]

I have disappointing news for Mr. Greer. NASA HAS RETOUCHED AS17-134-20482 AND PUT

UP A NEW SCAN WHERE I GOT THE OLD ONE. The new one is of lesser quality, IS CROPPED

DIFFERENTLY, and the nails holding the black paper patch to the LEM have been retouched out,

I presume, because I can no longer bring them out with increased contrast and chroma.

I first became suspicious when Mr. Greer posted what he claimed was the same image I had

used. It did not seem so to me...I checked, and found the NEW SCAN. I first posted the black

patch discovery several years ago. Is the new scan an attempt to defuse the issue?

Jack

Jack

I really don't know where you're going with this one, I can't make head nor tail of the text you've put in the image.

Here is the highest resolution version of this image I can find - ftp://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ISD_highres_AS17_AS17-134-20482.JPG

You can see that this is not a scan from a print, it's from the film roll itself. What you are trying to say with the "red-box crop"? Not knowing the provenance of the image you are claiming has been changed , it's difficult to comment, except to say that it's an ongoing project for NASA providing better quality scans of images. What the small dots you claim to be "nail heads" (!) could well be something as mundane as specks of dirt on a print the image was canned from. Like I say, impossible to be sure without seeing the image itself.

What we do know is, it ain't on the scan of the film roll... so it's highly likely it was introduced accidentally when the image was reproduced.

I showed the image I downloaded years ago. IT HAS MORE INFORMATION ON THE

TOP EDGE than the one now posted. I did not invent the extra area at the top; the

new image crops it out. Do you deny that?

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

I have disappointing news for Mr. Greer. NASA HAS RETOUCHED AS17-134-20482 AND PUT

UP A NEW SCAN WHERE I GOT THE OLD ONE. The new one is of lesser quality, IS CROPPED

DIFFERENTLY, and the nails holding the black paper patch to the LEM have been retouched out,

I presume, because I can no longer bring them out with increased contrast and chroma.

I first became suspicious when Mr. Greer posted what he claimed was the same image I had

used. It did not seem so to me...I checked, and found the NEW SCAN. I first posted the black

patch discovery several years ago. Is the new scan an attempt to defuse the issue?

Jack

Jack

I really don't know where you're going with this one, I can't make head nor tail of the text you've put in the image.

Here is the highest resolution version of this image I can find - ftp://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ISD_highres_AS17_AS17-134-20482.JPG

You can see that this is not a scan from a print, it's from the film roll itself. What you are trying to say with the "red-box crop"? Not knowing the provenance of the image you are claiming has been changed , it's difficult to comment, except to say that it's an ongoing project for NASA providing better quality scans of images. What the small dots you claim to be "nail heads" (!) could well be something as mundane as specks of dirt on a print the image was canned from. Like I say, impossible to be sure without seeing the image itself.

What we do know is, it ain't on the scan of the film roll... so it's highly likely it was introduced accidentally when the image was reproduced.

I showed the image I downloaded years ago. IT HAS MORE INFORMATION ON THE

TOP EDGE than the one now posted. I did not invent the extra area at the top; the

new image crops it out. Do you deny that?

Jack

WHERE DID YOU GET YOUR IMAGES? Its been two years and this image is posted MANY places on the web. Not all the images are the same (duh).

You need to pony up all the information....

[Jack White]

Jack ... I agree with you that the black material (thermal blanket ) in AS17-134-20482 looks highly unusual in all of the photos .... And no matter if the photo is low res or high, it still looks as though this image doesn't belong with the rest of the scene ... If I could see more of distance shot of this maybe it would not be so out of place or strange looking ....

Do you have any of the photos where this black thermal blanket image is missing ? ... Or possibly more of a distance shot of this scene ? ... If so it would be easier to tell if this is an anomalous image or not .

Why would a "thermal blanket" of such a small size be ATTACHED WITH NAILS?

What is the evidence of this being a "thermal blanket"?

Why would it be attached OVERLAPING the flag decal?

Jack