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

[Evan Burton]

SMILE – YOU’RE ON CANDID CAMERA (All sections)

This series of images reminds me of Grandpa Simpson talking about some of his stories: they ramble on and on but don’t have a point to them.

There are a number of corrections, though, that need to be made to what Jack has said in them.

1. “THE APOLLO LUNAR SURFACE JOURNAL IS NASA’S OFFICIAL DOCUMENTATION OF EVERY ASTRONAUT ACTIVITY DOWN TO A FRACTION OF A SECOND” – Well no, it isn’t. The ALSJ is a private work started by an enthusiast, contributed to by a multitude of individuals, based on NASA records, subject to correction, and resides on a NASA server.

I contacted the creator of the ALSJ, Eric Jones, to confirm this. He said:

“…I completed enough of the Journal to put some on line in 1995 and, at that time, even short audio clips would have challenged most folks internet connections. Over the years, we added audio and video clips from a variety of sources. It is only in the last two or three years that we've been able to be systematic, thanks to the increasing prevalence of broadband AND the availability of high-quality digital version of the best recordings available in the archives, thanks mostly to Mark Gray at Spacecraft Films.

The Journal is my own creation, with a great deal of input from a group of very talented, knowledgeable volunteers from not only the U.S. but also, Canada, Australia, the UK, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Scandanavia. NASA's History Division hosts the Journal and has been very helpful in getting us access to such things as scans of the original film. The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal is NOT an 'official record' of Apollo.”

2. HOW POSSIBLE FOR THE UNMANNED CAMERA TO PAN, TILT, ZOOM, REFRAME? – Again, it didn’t. The clips provided on ALSJ are, as mentioned above, from a variety of sources. Sometimes these people will zoom in on sections to show – in greater detail – an activity that was of interest. This is no different to when Jack might zoom in on a section of an image to emphasise something. No mysterious ‘whistleblowers’, nothing untoward.

3. THE WHITE ROD – Eric Jones kindly answered this one in his e-mail:

“In the Apollo 11 video, the diagonal white line on the right is a ghost image of the brightly lit LM leg on the left. You can see the change in relative position while Neil's getting the final aiming set up. You can also see the ghost disappear when one of the astronauts walks in front of the LM leg so that it is momentarily hidden from the TV camera. The ghost is undoubtedly the product of reflections inside the TV lens and/or camera.”

Lastly, Jack makes some comments about the Kapton foil seen at the base of the LM. As has been stated many times before, Jack White is NOT an aeronautical or aerospace engineer – his training is in advertising. Jack White is NOT an expert in spacecraft design and construction. If he has a point to make, he should provide evidence from experts in that field that the materials were not used in the construction of the LM or that the material would be incapable of carrying out the task for which it was designed.

Edited January 29, 2006 by Evan Burton

[David G. Healy]

Evan wrote:

[...]

Lastly, Jack makes some comments about the Kapton foil seen at the base of the LM. As has been stated many times before, Jack White is NOT an aeronautical or aerospace engineer – his training is in advertising. Jack White is NOT an expert in spacecraft design and construction. If he has a point to make, he should provide evidence from experts in that field that the materials were not used in the construction of the LM or that the material would be incapable of carrying out the task for which it was designed.

Evan,

May I quote the following [from your post above] in response to another forum thread? Nothing to do with NASA!

quote on

"If he has a point to make, he should provide evidence from experts in that field"

quote off

David Healy

[Evan Burton]

Thanks for that Len.

In my opinion, people could easily misinterpret what Jack believes because what he portrays will give another impression.

He has stated clearly in this thread, though, what his thoughts on the matter are and therefore I think the edits I made to the post are quite appropriate. They now accurately reflect Jack's stated position.

[Len Colby]

Thanks for that Len.

In my opinion, people could easily misinterpret what Jack believes because what he portrays will give another impression.

He has stated clearly in this thread, though, what his thoughts on the matter are and therefore I think the edits I made to the post are quite appropriate. They now accurately reflect Jack's stated position.

Hats off to you Evan, you are a consummate gentleman. Jack said you lied and lacked credebility because you interpretid statements that he made which clearly indicate that he believes the Moon landings were faked as meaning that's what he believes. Despite him insulting you, you show enough respect for his currently stated position to edit your post.

[Len Colby]

For more on Jack's intellectual dishonesty re: what he has said about Apollo see the "Three Questions for Jack White" thread.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...036entry53036

Edited January 31, 2006 by Len Colby

[Evan Burton]

HATCH ANOMOLIES 1 (window, 'shiny thing', distortion)

In this example, Jack portrays three sections of the images (AS11-40-5862 and AS11-40-5863) as displaying anomolous behaviour. Once again, he is wrong. The three 'anomolies' Jack has raised are:

- A black LM window in one image, and a 'blue' window showing a reflection of the lunar landscape in the other.

- What Jack calls a 'shiny thing' in one image, which is not apparent in the next image.

- Some type of distortion issue with the decal on the LM descent stage.

Let's look at each one in turn.

THE WINDOW

To me (and most other people), it is obvious that as Armstrong moved further to his right to take the second image (AS11-40-5863), the LM window is now reflecting the lunar landscape. Jack said in his 'analysis' that:

"...but the reflections should match."

I was going to draw a ray path diagramme to show how wrong Jack is. The LM windows are tilted down and outwards (to allow maximum visibility for the crew). When Armstrong moved, the reflection off the window would also change (if Jack wishes to challenge that Armstrong moved, I would be happy to take this up in a separate post). To make this diagramme, I would need accurate data for the angles at which the LM window was tilted. This is surprisingly hard to find. Short of actually going to a LM and measuring them myself, I was unsure what to do. I was looking through some shots I took from the Kennedy Space Centre (KSC), when I looked at the images I had taken of the LM on display (this is actually LM-9, a genuine LM but not flown - obviously. The Apollo 11 LM was LM-5). That's when I realised I didn't need a ray path diagramme.

I took several shots of the LM that is displayed in the Saturn V Hall at KSC, at various angles, with and without flash. The metadata tags say they were taken 22 MAY 02, but I must have set the date incorrectly. They were actually taken 23 JAN 03, with a Fuji FinePix F601 digital camera (I know this because I still have the KSC tickets, and I was back in Australia by then).

Here are some of the images I took (reduced to save space); note what you see in the LM windows for each image. Please note - THESE IMAGES HAVE NOT BEEN ALTERED IN ANY WAY FROM THE ORIGINAL, EXCEPT FOR RESIZING:

Now, here are crops of the LM windows from the original images (all at 100% of original size - no enlargement, NO ALTERATION OR ENHANCEMENT):

As you can see, the reflection changes as I move. You can see a reflection of the rear of the APOLLO 12 patch reproduction in one, black / grey in another, and a blue tinge in the other. I suspect the blue tinge has to do with the material the glass of the LM windows were constructed of, but have yet to confirm this.

THE SHINY THING

Once more, this is simply a case of part of the LM reflecting light from Armstrong's suit and the lunar surface in one image, and being hidden / not reflecting in another. As luck would have it, the angles that I took my images of the KSC LM are very similar to the Apollo images, and therefore show what is happening. Have a look at the composite image I have constructed below. If Jack would like to challenge that the images are not genuine in any way, I would be glad to publicly debate the matter. As always - DON'T TAKE WHAT I SAY AS FACT; go to KSC and take your own images. See if they match what I am saying, or if I have manipulated my images somehow.

DISTORTION

I'm not really sure what Jack is trying to say here. He admits they were taken at different angles. Jack says he"made them match by computer stretching" - perhaps Jack could expand on his issue with this - IN A PUBLIC FORUM?

I have to admit, I am very surprised that someone with Jack's experience in photography could be making such errors and demonstrating a lack of understanding of the basics in photography.

Edited February 3, 2006 by Evan Burton

[Len Colby]

I have to admit, I am very surprised that someone with Jack's experience in photography could be making such errors and demonstrating a lack of understanding of the basics in photography.

I second that Evan!!!

Did Jack ever use the "no stars in the sky" argument?

Len

[Evan Burton]

HATCH ANOMOLIES 2 (Little man, big door / Big man, little door)

In this 'study' Jack says:

"A tiny kneeling man with no lower legs is seen with butt and tiny backpack at opening of Eagle egress hatch. Being this close to edge of door, his feet and legs should be sticking out of door."

Well, getting out of the LM wearing a PLSS backpack was certainly a tight fit, no doubt about that. Reference to the ALSJ shows that Buzz Aldrin said during debriefing:

[Aldrin, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "The hatch moved inward very easily. As I faced the hatch, I moved the (spare, non-EVA Hasselblad) camera from its position on the right side (the CDR's side) of the floor, up onto the Z-27 bulkhead (at the aft of the cabin). (In getting in) I had very little difficulty, again using the same technique that Neil used (at the start of the EVA when he went part way out and then tested his ability to re-enter). About halfway in, make a concerted effort to arch your back to keep the PLSS down by keeping your belly down against the floor. This affords you the least profile going in. There didn't seem to be any exertion at all associated with raising yourself up and transitioning to a point where you can bring your knees on inside the cockpit, and then moving from a kneeling (position) to an upright position. It all seemed to work quite smoothly. When there is a large bulk (that is, the PLSS), attached to you, you have to be careful. Once you get inside, before you start to turn around, you must make adequate allowance for all this material behind you."]

Also

109:39:57 Armstrong: Okay. Your PLSS looks like it is clearing okay. Your toes are about to come over the sill. Okay. (Pause) Now drop your PLSS down. There you go; you're clear. And laterally you're good. You've got an inch clearance on top of your PLSS.

109:40:18 Aldrin: Okay. You need a little bit of arching of the back to come down. (Garbled) How far are my feet from the edge?

109:40:27 Armstrong: Okay. You're right at the edge of the porch.

109:40:30 Aldrin: Okay. Back in (garbled) (Pause) Now a little of foot movement (garbled) porch. Little arching of the back. Helmet comes up and clears the bulkhead without any trouble at all.

109:40:48 Armstrong: Looks good. (Long Pause)

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

Remember that the LM hatch swung inwards, so there was room for the astronauts to kneel down without their legs going outside the hatch. As for the "tiny" man, well that's just how it appears. Notice that the size of the PLSS backpack is still in the correct proportion to the astronaut.

Jack then says:

"The bright lighting INSIDE the LEM is incredible, since it is alleged to be reflected from the lunar surface."

Not quite. Firstly, the lighting is mainly in the porch / hatch area; the interior of the LM is actually dark. Secondly, the lighting not only comes from the lunar surface, but also reflected off Armstrong's white suit. This accounts for many instances of so-called 'lighting anomolies'.

Jack continues:

"Based on the shadow on the backpack inside the door at left, the lighting is coming down from above... impossible if the light is reflected from the Moon's surface."

Once again, it is not only light reflected from the surface, but also from the EVA suits. Now let's have a look at the claim that 'lighting is coming down from above'. Here is a crop from the hi-resolution version of AS11-40-5862. Once again, the image has not been adjusted by me, and as always, download the hi-res image and examine it for yourself:

Crop of AS11-40-5862 (hi-res)

If the lighting is coming from above, there should be other shadows. Have a look and see if you can find any. Notice the LEC tether to the left of Aldrin, passing from inside the LM down to the surface. Does it cast a shadow on Aldrin? No. Have a look at the left hand side of the hatch, where the tether passes the edge of the hatch door; you can see a slight shadow being cast on the door edge - coming from the direction of Armstrong.

There are no anomolies.

[Evan Burton]

HATCH ANOMOLIES 3 & 4 (Cross lighting)

I'll combine these two because we are talking about the same area. Jack makes reference to "Apollogists" pointing out his errors; I suspect I am that person. I contacted Aulis and pointed out that what Jack had called a 'shadow across the hatch door' was in fact it's normal colouring. I presented images which proved this. Aulis withdrew Jack's original claim, but have let him slip it back in with all the revisions he was forced to do. Keep that in mind when you consider the credibility of Aulis.

Jack originally said there is a shadow across the LM hatch, caused by the 'wing' on the 'egress door', indicating 'lighting from the left'. In his revised claim, Jack subtly tries once again to say it's a shadow by once more refering to it as 'cross lighting' and saying that looks were not a part of the LM design. Looks did not play a part in the LM design; that much is true. So what is Jack actually trying to say?

In my opinion, he is making two claims:

1. Despite the photographic evidence, the hatch really wasn't two-toned (THE HATCH); and

2. There is an unexplained shadow on the ceiling in the images (THE SHADOW).

Let's look at each claim.

THE HATCH

Jack originally refered to AS11-40-5868 when making the 'cross lighting' claim. I pointed out the hatch looked the same in AS11-44-6574 and AS11-44-6598, also showing a cropped & enlarged section of AS11-44-6598. In his revision Jack says he finds it incredible that the hatch should look this way, as 'looks' were not part of the design. Looks are not part of the design, but functionality and design defect rectification are. It's worth discussing a bit of LM background here. Not all LMs are the same. Some were built for test purposes only; these were known LTAs (LM Test Article). The first of the 'true' LMs was LM-1, which flew on the unmanned Apollo 5 for it's initial testing. LM-2 never flew. LM-3 was used on Apollo 9, LM-4 on Apollo 10, and LM-5 on Apollo 11. Later LMs (for the 'J' series missions) had stowage for the LRV, improved life support systems for longer duration lunar stays, etc. As the LMs were built, improvements and weight saving modifications were incorporated into the design, often from experience with a previous LM. LM-1 seemed to be leaky and it's descent stage fibreglass thermal shield came loose, requiring a change to the fastening assembly. LM-3 had a descent stage propellant tank contact the upper deck during the S-IC stage engine cutoff; this required a larger opening in the deck. It's forward hatch also suffered binding from the micrometeorite shield and thermal blankets, which required the shield to be extended and the blanket taped. All these were incorporated on LM-5. When building them, though, you can't always incorporate improved design features into all the LMs. At a certain stage you have to 'freeze' the design otherwise it's construction will be continually delayed trying to incorporate the improvements. Of course, any critical flaws would be corrected, but 'nice to have' improvements would be incorporated on later craft.

What this means is that the earlier LMs sometimes looked a little different to later LMs.

This is how the later LM egress hatch looked:

LM-8 Egress Hatch (Courtesy of www.myspacemuseum.com)

Notice in the middle of the hatch you can see a line and some rivets, indicating that the outer covering of the hatch was constructed in two sections - right at the point where the "shadow" appears in the LM-5 images.

What about the 'two-tone' hatch - are there any other examples? Well, with a little research I found these:

LM-3 hatch during checkout (crop from AP9-S68-36625)

LM-4 inflight (crop and enlargement from AS10-34-5091)

LM-4 inflight (crop from AS10-34-5116)

So, as you can see, it is simply the way the hatch looked. It is not a 'cross lighting' effect, even if Jack fails to understand that.

THE SHADOW

Now we have demonstrated that it is not a shadow across the egress hatch, what about the other "anomoly"? What is it? Simply put, it is a slight bulge in the panelling. It can be seen in the following images:

Crop of AS11-40-5862HR

Crop of AP11-S69-19644HR (LM-5 during checkout)

Crop of AS11-40-5863HR

Crop of AS11-40-5867HR

Crop and enlargement of AS11-44-6574

Once again, Jack has made basic errors and is wrong.

Edited February 7, 2006 by Evan Burton

[Evan Burton]

HATCH ANOMOLIES 5 (Two-tone door, reticules)

Once more with the hatch! It was a design feature. The fact that it appears slightly different in AS12-46-6728 does not mean anything at all, lighting effects can alter the way it appears. If Jack can provide evidence that it was NOT like that before launch, then he should produce it.

Then Jack points out that Apollo 14 did NOT have a two-tone hatch. For once, Jack is right. As previously mentioned in my other posts, the LMs don't always look the same. Improvements are added, if time permits.

Reading Table 1 of NASA Technical Note D-7084 (Apollo Experience Report - Lunar Module Structural Subsystem), it notes that the thermal shield on the forward hatch (which is NOT 'painted on', by the way) on LM-6 (Apollo 12) was torn by the astronaut's PLSS backpack during egress / ingress and was replaced by a redesigned thermal shield. That's why LM-8's egress hatch is one colour, rather than the two-tone of previous LMs.

Then Jack raises, once again, the effects of lens flare on the camera and attempts to use it as evidence of fakery. He shows a crop of AS14-66-9306. He says there is a prismatic effect "of unknown cause" and then points to the crosshair 'lifting effect', claiming it is a fake added in a darkroom overlay.

Firstly, take a look at the FULL image AS14-66-9306:

AS14-66-9306

What's that up in the top left hand corner of the LM? Yes, it's the sun. The rainbow is caused by a lens flare. You will see it in many Apollo images. You'll see in many images taken in space. And yes, you'll also see it in many images taken right here on Earth:

Perhaps Jack, as an expert photographer, should take a refresher course in lens flare:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/lens-flare.htm

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

http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/flare.html

Next, Jack talks about crosshairs, claiming that they are added by the darkroom wizards with an overlay.

Why? If you are faking the image, why not simply organise the modification necessary to the image, then shoot it with a reseau-plate fitted camera? You'd get perfect crosshairs every time.

How did this effect, which appears in MANY Apollo images, get past all the QC inspectors? Jack's standard answer will be "whistleblowers" - but he cannot offer any proof of this.

Jack says that it's from an overlay - but fellow forum member, Craig Lamson (who I believe is a professional photographer) says that is impossible to do the way Jack suggests. In the previous incarnation of this rebuttal, he said:

The theory Jack suggests is not possible. Light and shadow from the copy process will not act like Jack suggests. In short he cant do it. I challenge him to try and create a similar result using his equipment and a simple overlay. He wont need any special equipment, just a digital camera, a tripod, and a two lights (desk lamps or those clip on worklights that cost 4 bucks will work just fine). Make a transparent overlay with some crosshairs on his inkjet printer and do the test. Prove it can be done. This is not rocket science and Jack CLAIMS to be a photography expert. Any photo expert worth his salt could do this test with half of his brain tied behind his back. Come on Jack show us some of that skill you profess to have...do the test...prove your point...for once.

Can Jack demonstrate this effect using his method? If he can, let him post the results here for all to see.

Finally, what IS causing that effect?

Short answer - I don't really know.

I have noticed that they always occur around a sun flare, and only around the flare.

Have a look at the hires image of AS14-66-9306. You see the effect around the flare; all the other fiducials (crosshairs) are normal. Also notice that the you see one 'normal' set of fiducials, and the second set of fiducials curved away from the first, each one moving AWAY from the sun flare - except the ones nearest the centre of the grid and away from the sun.

Based on this observation, I've got a theory. The professional photographers can pass judgement on it, because I don't have the expertise to really say if it's right or not; it's just a guess.

We know that the reseau plate with the fiducials on it is placed up against the film.

I wondering if the extremely strong light coming in through the lens is somehow causing a reflection off the reseau plate to be bounced off the innermost lens, and reflected again onto the film? That might account for the curvature we see, and explain why when it is near the centre of the image the effect is very small. The outermost sections would be reflecting off sections of the lens with the largest curvature or angle relative to the film "normal".

Just a guess.

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

EDITED 15 FEB 06 TO ADD:

I contacted Hasselblad to ask, as the makers of the camera and with over 100 years of photographic experience, if they could answer the question of the reticules. They replied:

Hello Mr. Burton,

The effect you can see is caused by interference from the reseau plate. The image of the sun on the film is partly reflected and acts as a secondary strong light source. The reseau plate is a 4 mm thick glass plate and the distance between the surface facing the film and the film itself is around 0.1 mm in outer areas (less in center areas).

The strong light reflected from the film is reflected again from the reseau plate surfaces. Due to glass reflection properties (total reflection at larger incidence angles), the radius of corresponding "halo" is maximum around 7-8 mm. The shadows of the two hair crosses close to the periphery of the halo are caused by two types of reflections from the reseau plate.

The OK looking cross comes from two reflections in the front surface (facing the lens) and one reflection in the rear surface. The final reflex hits the hair cross at a similar angle like ordinary light and therefore the hair cross looks OK.

The skew cross comes from one reflection in the front surface with the light hitting the hair cross coming at an angle not too far from the total reflection angle of around 42 degrees. Outgoing light has a large exit angle (more than 60 degrees probably) making the offset you see in the image. You can also see that the skew line looks to be pointing at the halo center, which indicates where the original light comes from.

Hope that above explanation is understandable. Please come back for possible additional clarification.

Best regards

VICTOR HASSELBLAD AB

Erland Pettersson

Product Manager Camera Systems

Tel. +46 31 102450

Fax. +46 31 135074

This is conclusive proof that Jack is wrong.

Edited February 15, 2006 by Evan Burton

[Evan Burton]

HATCH ANOMOLIES 6 (Apollo 15 / Apollo 16)

Apollo 15

It appears that Jack now has a fixation on the LM Egress Hatch. Jack has said in this study:

”No photos exist of the (APOLLO 15) door” and

”… did not take a single photo of the front of the LEM (sic)”

This is why I say to everyone to do their own research, and not take anyone’s word on a matter. Once more, Jack is wrong:

Apollo 15 LM during LRV check fit (AP15-KSC-71P-282)

Link to hi-resolution copy of AS15-86-11598

Link to hi-resolution copy of AS15-87-11852 (yes, it’s a distance shot but it DOES show the front of the LM, contrary to what Jack has stated)

Apollo 15 LM during rendezvous (AS15-96-13040)

Next, Jack asks why no photos were taken of the LRV being unloaded. That’s quite simple – it was a two-person job to unload.

ALSJ:

[After he gets the aft lanyard, Jim drapes it over the secondary strut and hops over to the MESA to get the CDR Hasselblad camera. As per LMP-4 and LMP-5, Jim is scheduled to get the CDR camera off the MESA after the Rover deployment but, apparently, wants to try to get some pictures of the deployment. However, as we will hear in a few moments, it is impossible to take pictures while keeping tension on the lanyard and walking backwards, and Jim doesn't get any pictures of the deployment. The CDR camera is stowed at the left rear of the MESA. The LMP camera is in the ETB.]

With both astronauts involved in the deployment of the LRV, there is no-one left to take photos – except the television camera.

Link to ALSJ television footage of LRV deployment.

There would have been 16mm footage also, but..

(from the ALSJ)

[Dave is now 30 minutes into the EVA and was scheduled to complete the TV operations at 29 minutes. He is only a minute or two behind schedule. However, because Dave isn't quite ready to deploy the Rover, Jim has jumped ahead to his checklist page LMP-5 and is preparing the 16-mm camera so that they can photograph the Rover deployment. Unfortunately, the 16-mm camera suffered a series of malfunctions due to improper film loading and there is very little good lunar surface film from this mission. The 16-mm camera is stowed on the right side of the MESA.]

Apollo 16

Jack points out an apparent disparity between the position of the decals on Quad IV of the LM. Yet again, Jack fails to do the research which explains this “anomoly”.

They are different decals.

The first image is AS16-118-18894, taken in orbit above the lunar surface, prior to landing, shows the decals on Quad IV.

The second image, AS16-116-18579, shows the decals in an apparently different position. That’s because they are not the same decals. The first image shows the decals on the outside of the MESA (Modularised Equipment Stowage Area) at Quad IV (to the left of the ladder if we look at the LM from the front). The second image shows the MESA deployed (i.e. folded down) and the decals we see now were previously hidden by the closed MESA. You can see here another view of Quad IV with the MESA deployed; you can see the depression on the descent stage where the MESA was folded in to.

Crop of AS16-107-17436HR

The next claim Jack makes is:

“…allegedly is the folded up LRV, but on the surface it is covered in foil.”

This claim makes little sense, because as you can see in the picture, the LRV is already unstowed and on the lunar surface!

AS16-116-18579

This claim is followed by:

”…the undisturbed soil shows the LRV was not unloaded in the vicinity.”

Crop of AS16-116-18579

Sure looks ‘disturbed’ to me! Once more, JACK IS WRONG.

[Evan Burton]

HATCH ANOMOLIES 7 (Yet another shadow / LM exterior colouring)

Jack's hatch fixation continues.

Jack claims (yet again) there is a 'shadow' across the hatch - but this time it is on Apollo 17, specifically AS17-140-21370. He doesn't actually SAY what might be causing a shadow; I presume that it is meant to be self-evident.

No, it's not self evident and no, it's not a shadow. Jack is wrong (again).

Still, in fairness and to maintain credibility, let's examine the claim.

Firstly, here is a crop of the enhanced image Jack made by changing the intensity of the RGB colour:

Notice the yellow line Jack has drawn in, to illustrate where the 'shadow' line is, and thus the 'tonal difference'. The 'darker' area (i.e. shadow) is indicated by the bottom / left side of the yellow line. That means the 'additional lighting' would be coming from the left hand side of the LM.

For a start, look at the left hand side of the forward face of the LM (what jack has labelled as 'A' in his images under the hatch images. Look at the right of that face, immediately to the left of the hatchway structure. In both the images Jack presents, there is a darker portion. I've highlighted it here:

Now, if there is additional lighting from the left hand side of the LM, why isn't this area being lit? That's because Jack is wrong.

Let's look at that same 'shadow' portion again, but first, look at how the LM hatchway looked:

LM-9 at Kennedy Space Centre

Notice how the hatchway extends out at the top of the hatch area, and curves down to meet the lip of the hatch at the bottom (indicated by red arrows)?

So if Jack's 'shadow' starts at the top left hand corner of the LM hatch, and the hatch extends out at the top, any light source would need to be pointing directly at the top of the hatch area in order that it does NOT cast at shadow at the top left hand side.

The bottom of Jack's shadow extends all the way across the hatch to the bottom right hand corner. The structure at the left of the hatch curves down to meet the hatch area here. Therefore, to have a shadow caused by this structure go all the way across the hatch to the right hand side, the light source would need to be on the FAR left of the LM, at 90 degrees to the previous 'light source'.

It's impossible! A shadow cannot be cast as described, because the light positions are in at least two different locations.

Don't take my word for this; construct a little cardboard model that roughly approximates the hatch structure. Try and get a light source to create the 'shadow' that Jack says is there.

Next, let's examine Jack's claim about the 'bad lighting' on Apollo 11.

Jack compares images of the LM front - AS17-140-21370 on the left, and AS11-44-6574 on the right. He points to Apollo 11's LM front area (labeled 'A') being darker than the right (labeled 'B') and says that it is the result of 'bad lighting'. He says that the black area 'A' in AS11-44-6574 should be the same as the grey area labeled 'A' in AS17-140-21370.

WRONG!!! Once more Jack demonstrates his lack of research in this area.

Let's look at some images of the Apollo 11 LM:

LM-5 (Apollo 11) during final assembly (AP11-S69-19644)

LM-5 (Apollo 11) inflight (AS11-44-6574)

LM-5 (Apollo 11) ascent stage just prior to re-docking with the CSM (AS11-44-6642)

It was the way LM-5 looked. As I have said previously, not all LMs looked the same. So, once more and with an unbroken record - JACK IS WRONG!

Edited February 10, 2006 by Evan Burton

[Evan Burton]

WERE LUNAR AERIAL SURFACE PHOTOS MADE USING LARGE SCALE MODELS?

I'm not quite sure what point Jack is trying to make here.

As soon as a lunar landing became a goal of the US space programme, they had to do research. They had to find out what the moon was really like. The constraints upon a lunar lander would not allow it to flitter above the lunar surface, looking for a nice spot to land. All available information had to be gathered in order to determine the best spot to land.

In order to gather this information, NASA launched the Ranger, Lunar Orbiter, and the Surveyor probes.

The Lunar Orbiter's were designed to take detailed images of the lunar surface until a hard impact on the surface (destroying the probe). The Surveyor probes were designed to make a soft landing on the lunar surface, determine what the surface was, and take detailed images of it.

See here for some history of those flights.

These (along with released images of Soviet lunar probes) were used to create detailed maps and models of the moon. When Apollos 8 and 10 also went into lunar orbit, one of their primary concerns were to make detailed studies of the lunar surface. This data was also used in the construction of models and selection of the Apollo 11 landing site.

These models were not only used for site selection, they were used for training the astronauts as well. Simulators were still fairly primitive in those days, so when the astronauts practiced lunar orbit and landing sequences, the models were used. A television camera was aimed at the models to help the astronauts become familiar with the features and terrain they would be expecting. The LM simulator did not "generate" images , it relied on models.

It's just another part of the Apollo programme - practice, practice, practice.

[Evan Burton]

Hmmmmmmm?

This is another example of where Jack doesn't say what he actually means. It's a common tactic; present something and then try to lead the viewer to your conclusion by intimating something without actually saying it.

What Jack is trying to say - in my opinion - is that because there was a model of the CSM over a model of the moon, the image of the actual CSM over the actual moon must be suspect. There is nothing of the sort. Images were produced to show what the mission would look like; images were produced to help the astronauts train, to show them what they could expect to see.

Notice that the model of the CSM looks different from the actual image of a CSM in lunar orbit (Which is AS17-145-22261, a detail I am sure that Jack simply forgot to add).

Have you never seen an artists impression of what a new aircraft may look like? Have you never seen (prior to computer generated graphics - CGI) models being used in the training of flight crews?

Contrary to what Jack intimates, without the production of models and simulation, Apollo would have been likely to fail without these training aids.

[Evan Burton]

WHY ASTRONAUTS SHADOWS ARE ANOMALOUS

This simply illustrates Jack's lack of experience with using a camera (if I understand what Jack is trying to say - a difficult task at times).

There is nothing wrong with any of the images (none of which are labeled with their ID number).

Jack seems to be saying that the bottom of the shadow of the photographer must be in the bottom centre of the image.

UTTER TOSH AND TWADLE!

I won't bother to explain this to Jack.

I would simply ask anyone to go out and try this themselves.

Grab your camera (preferably digital so you can instantly see the results and not have to waste money on developing photographs).

Pick a time early morning or late afternoon, when the sun (sole lighting source) is low, so that you can get a long shadow from your body. Try to pick some terrain roughly similar to what the images show.

Position yourself so that your back is to the sun.

Aim the camera so that your (long) shadow is in the centre of the image.

Now, turn yourself slightly to the left or right, so the camera is aiming to the left or right but your shadow is still in the shot. Best of all, try to reproduce the images Jack has shown using any convenient objects you have around.

YOU MUST BE PART OF THE APOLLO CONSPIRACY!

After all, Jack says that "it's the law", right? NO. Once more, Jack is wrong.

Look at your images. They are the same as the Apollo 11 images? Yes?

Look at these images I took myself:

If Jack would like to publicly accuse me of faking these images, I would be more than willing to set up an independant verification of the reality of those images.

Shall we check to see if those images can be reproduced without modification or alteration, Jack?