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

"Jagster" and "Eta C" from the Bad Astronomy / Universe Today Bulletin Board also pointed out there are a number of online videos showing the LRV deployment. They were taken with cameras that had already been set up prior to the LRV deployment:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/video15.html#deploylrv

Yep - "not a single photo of a LRV attached to the port side of the LEM (sic) can be located". Of course if you don't look for something, you can't locate something.

Evan Burton · March 12, 2006

THE MYSTERY OF THE APOLLO MOONROVERS:

CHAPTER 4 - WHY WERE NO PHOTOS TAKEN?

This has been explained before. LRV deployment was a two-man operation, so there was no-one to take still photos of it being deployed.

There was, of course, television footage of the deployment. See previous post.

Evan Burton · March 12, 2006

THE MYSTERY OF THE APOLLO MOONROVERS:

CHAPTER 5 - WHAT WAS IN THE PACKAGE?

Once more Jack shows the MESA package (which is very well documented). If you want images of the MESA package - of which there are many - please ask.

There was only video of deployment because, as I have said many times, it was a two-man operation.

And similarity of packages? No - because the LRV did not have any covering. After landing it would be deployed so there was no need for any type of covering. Have a look:

AP15-71-HC-682

No covering of the LRV package inside Quad I. An outer panel was fitted (seen in other images) and that was all. Nice image also showing how it all folded away into the LM.

Wrong again, Jack!

Evan Burton · March 12, 2006

WITH AND WITHOUT EXTRA LIGHTING

This has been explained many times, and Jack yet again demonstrates his lack of photographic knowledge by even claiming it.

This is an exert from Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy website. He discuss this very effect:

Bad: The next evidence also involves pictures. In all the pictures taken by the astronauts, the shadows are not black. Objects in shadow can be seen, sometimes fairly clearly, including a plaque on the side of the lander that can be read easily. If the Sun is the only source of light on the Moon, the HBs say, and there is no air to scatter that light, shadows should be utterly black.
Good: This is one of my favorite HB claims. They give you the answer in the claim itself: "...if the Sun is the only source of light..." It isn't. Initially, I thought the Earth was bright enough to fill in the shadows, but subsequently realized that cannot be the case. The Earth is a fraction of the brightness of the Sun, not nearly enough to fill in the shadows. So then what is that other light source?

The answer is: The Moon itself. Surprise! The lunar dust has a peculiar property: it tends to reflect light back in the direction from where it came. So if you were to stand on the Moon and shine a flashlight at the surface, you would see a very bright spot where the light hits the ground, but, oddly, someone standing a bit to the side would hardly see it at all. The light is preferentially reflected back toward the flashlight (and therefore you), and not the person on the side.

Now think about the sunlight. Let's say the sun is off to the right in a picture. It is illuminating the right side of the lander, and the left is in shadow. However, the sunlight falling beyond the lander on the left is being reflected back toward the Sun. That light hits the surface and reflects to the right and up, directly onto the shadowed part of the lander. In other words, the lunar surface is so bright that it easily lights up the shadows of vertical surfaces.

This effect is called heiligenschein (the German word for halo). You can find some neat images of it at here, for example. This also explains another HB claim, that many times the astronauts appear to be standing in a spotlight. This is a natural effect of heiligenschein. You can reproduce this effect yourself; wet grass on a cool morning will do it. Face away from the Sun and look at the shadow of your head. There will be a halo around it. The effect is also very strong in fine, disturbed dust like that in a baseball diamond infield. Or, of course, on the Moon.

[Note added June 29, 2001: A nifty demonstration of the shadow filling was done by Ian Goddard and can be found here. His demos are great, and really drive the point home.]

Here is another good website discussing photography you should visit:

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/

Evan Burton · March 12, 2006

COLOUR PHOTOS VERSUS GOLD FOIL

Jack is getting petulant here, and drags up the "photos on the footpad" claim again.

Notice he only shows the gold foil on the footpads, not any of the mylar and other packing materials.

See the previous post on page 1 of this thread for the whole story.

Evan Burton · March 12, 2006

OVERLAY USED TO ADD US DECAL TO LUNAR MODULE

Jack has a thing about overlays. Pity it's not the case here. It's just material used in the LM construction. The same material that is placed on Quad III. To us, it looks like black paper.

Have a look at the previous two frames on the magazine, AS11-40-5862 and AS11-40-5863.

You can see the same material in those shots. Also check out the LM photos after undocking from the CSM. You can also see it there, albeit not as clearly. Use the hi-res images.

Also, ask yourself - why use a detectable "overlay" - why not just put the decal on the LM when you took the shot? If the decal was missing from some type of "faked" image - why use that image? Why not simply replace that image with something else, reshoot the image (there are plenty of LMs), or simply 'spoil' the image and say it was a poor shot? None of it makes any sense - unless it was a genuine image of a genuine LM on the genuine lunar surface.

Once again, it's not some attempt at a coverup.

Evan Burton · March 12, 2006

LEM BLACK PATCH ANOMOLY

This is a good example of why you should check things for yourself, and not take anyones sayso on things. Not Jack. Not me. Check for yourself.

If you do, you discover a couple of things.

Firstly, the visor reflection. Look at the high resolution version of AS17-134-20482.

This is what you'll see:

AS17-134-20482 (high resolution, cropped, annotated)

It's the reflection of the lunar surface. You can see the LM shadow clearly.

Now, Jack's other claim:

NO OTHER PHOTOS OF THE FLAG DECAL SHOW THIS BLACK PATCH

AS17-134-20488

You can see the 'black patch'. It's a piece of the black material that forms the covering on some sections of the LM. This section is loose and is hanging down.

OH! And look! A reflection of an astronaut in the visor! That has to be proof it's a fake, right, because "there is nothing in the photo to create such a reflection".

AS17-140-21370

Another example of the "black patch". You can see it's hanging over the top right corner of the US flag decal.

Now, the "editors" comment:

Regarding the black paper-like material that was added – it is obviously not a part of the LM, therefore it must have been an addition made during the photo shoot – no doubt by a whistle-blower.

Obviously it is not part of the LM. Obviously all the other images which show the same material (from all the landings) is just a coincidence.

Just remember: if you ignore it, it's not really evidence.

Evan Burton · March 12, 2006

NOT A SPECK OF DUST ON THE LANDING PADS

Answered nicely here.

http://www.lunaranomalies.com/fake-moon2.htm

also talks about the dust. Here's an extract:

4. There is no dust on LM footpads. -- According to Kaysing and Fox, this is the strongest evidence that the Moon landings are faked. They allege that with the swirling dust from LM descent engine, the foot pads should be covered with dust.

As with all the other Moon Hoax charges, this one is flat wrong on several counts. First, the allegation that there is no Moon dust on the landing pads is wrong. Second, it is far from accurate that there should be dust on the pads. Finally, contrary to the claims made by Fox, an absence of dust would actually prove, rather than discount, that the LM had put down in an alien environment.

It was fairly easy to disprove Kaysing's claim that there was "no dust" on any of the Lunar footpads.

Here is an Apollo 16 picture, NASA frame AS16-107-17442. Obviously, the moon dust can be plainly seen on the footpad. Now, it is remotely possible that the dust got there by being kicked onto to it by one of the astronauts, but since this is not the pad below the ladder, that's unlikely. Still, the fact that there is dust there at all is really a matter of luck as it does not necessarily follow, as Fox and Kaysing wrongly assume, that the "swirling dust" should settle on the footpad.

As we have already shown, the descent engine of the LM is not nearly as powerful as Kaysing and the Moon Hoax advocates assume it is. Beyond that, the thrust does not behave in the airless vacuum the same way it does on Earth. As an example, the thrust in a vacuum is spherically shaped, as opposed to a tight, coherent tube on Earth. Further, without the air to help push around the the dust particles of the Lunar surface, there is very little distribution of the particles. So Kaysing's expectation of the dust swirling around the LM is just wrong, only a small amount of dust in the direct path of the thruster blast would be affected.

There is also the issue of the height of the LM off the Lunar surface.

The LM had landing sensors built into three of the four footpads. When one of the six-foot-long sensors scraped the Lunar surface, a light went off in the cabin and the LM pilot cut the descent engine. Without air to circulate the dust particles, the swirling of the Lunar dust essentially ceased within seconds of the engine cutoff. As a result, it is not at all unexpected that there would be little or no build up of dust on the footpads -- there simply wasn't much to settle on them in the first place.

Additional proof of this can once again be obtained from the earlier Surveyor unmanned landers.

Pictures transmitted from the Lunar surface of the Surveyor foot pads show that -- just as in the Apollo case -- there is little or dust build up on the footpads. In fact, only when the Surveyors were commanded to "hop" on the Lunar surface by briefly firing their main thrusters did any significant amount of dust build up on the footpads.

What these images prove is that it is entirely reasonable -- if not normal -- for there to be little or no dust build up on the footpads. Assumptions to the contrary are based on ignorance of not only the physics of landing in an airless alien environment, but the previous experience of the Surveyor program.

Evan Burton · March 12, 2006

BACKDROPS IN A STUDIO

Jack has seriously lost the plot with this one.

He says:

Using a chest mounted camera, a seated astronaut on the Apollo 17 rover managed to take dozens of pictures with the rover's mounted camera ALWAYS IN THE SAME LOCATION, regardless of whether it was going uphill, downhill, or sidehill.

Firstly he claims the astronaut could not take images seated in the LRV from the same position each time. When the camera is chest-mounted, and you are sitting in the LRV, it would be unusual NOT to have the view of the TV camera always in front!

Because of photo requirements to get sharp images, pictures could not be shot with the rover moving.

Then he claims the images could not be taken with the LRV moving. Horse-hockey! The camera settings were pre-calculated, so all he had to do was point & shoot. The only requirement was to make sure that the object he was trying to photograph was within the focus range of the camera (e.g. that might be something like no closer than 3 feet, no further than 100 feet).

Since the mounted camera is always vertical, it could NOT be on the rover, which was not always on LEVEL ground.

The mounted camera was on the LRV and was a television camera, not a still camera.

Just more bizzare ramblings from Jack.

Edited March 12, 2006 by Evan Burton

Evan Burton · March 12, 2006

NASA'S OPEN DOOR POLICY

Well, the light exposure does have a rectangular shape. That's about the extent of it, and of Jack's "proof".

So does another frame - the frame which is actually the last one on that magazine, AS16-116-18724:

I like the way Jack demonstrates his "photographic expertise" with the statement:

"ONLY AN IMAGE PASSING THROUGH THE CAMERA LENS can register an image. Sun striking the film during a magazine change CANNOT create an image"

Absolute bullxxxx. Light leaking into the film magazine can take various forms:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/i...6/107/17419.jpg

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/i...6/107/17580.jpg

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/i...6/107/17582.jpg

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/i...6/108/17584.jpg

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/i...S11/37/5434.jpg

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/i...S11/40/5970.jpg

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/i...S12/46/6868.jpg

Evan Burton · March 12, 2006

THE END!

Now, at last we come to the end of the individual replies to each of Jack's "new & irrefutable evidence".

All have been proven inaccurate, deceptive, idiotic, or just plain wrong.

In most of the cases, Jack has demonstrated misidentification, misinterpretation, and insufficent investigation of the subject material. His so-called "analysis" can be describes - at best - as incompetent.

Not one of the claims has been able to stand up to close scrutiny.

If Jack believes any of my responses are inaccurate, let him demonstrate where & how I have erred. If I have made a mistake, I'd be only to happy to admit it and correct the error.

Somehow, though, I don't think we'll hear from Jack; he dislikes public debate where his claims can be openly examined.

Lastly, I'd like to thank some people for their assistance. There are hundreds of sites out there which provide a valuable resource on researching Apollo - but I can't name them all. To those of you who I have failed to acknowledge - my thanks.

Eric Jones, of the tremendous Apollo Lunar Surface Journal - the essential reference when studying the Apollo lunar activities.

Kipp Teague of The Project Apollo Archive, a treasure trove of high quality orginal scans from the Apollo missions.

The Lunar and Planetary Institute's Apollo Image Atlas for all those 'hard to find' images.

Hasselblad cameras for their photographic expertise and information on the Apollo lunar cameras.

Takeshi Muto and his Apollo Maniacs website. Excellent technical information, images, and CGI renderings.

The Apollo Saturn Reference Page

My Space Museum, an excellent reference for technical details of both the US and Soviet space programmes.

The Field Guide to American Spacecraft, which lists the locations of all known Apollo hardware.

Clavius Moon Base, the FIRST stop when investigating so-called "moon hoax" claims.

Phil Plait and the crazy people of The Bad Astronomy / Universe Today Forum.

The knowledable people of ApolloHoax.com; if you don't believe we went to the moon, ask these guys. Between them they know most everything about the programme that is worth knowing.

and finally - but far from least - Doug Bennet of New Zealand, who downloaded all the original replies and images which saved me hundreds of hours in recreating this work. Onya Doug!

Edited March 12, 2006 by Evan Burton

Evan Burton · May 10, 2006

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

I was revisiting this thread, and came upon Jack's petulant outburst again. I thought it might be enlightening to have a look at what Jack has said about Apollo, and some of the non-photographic errors he has made with regard to it.

Grave doubt exists that the Apollo missions to the Moon were anything more than the most incredible hoax of all time. Did astronauts actually go to the Moon? I do not know. But NASA's own evidence shows that all photos of the Apollo feats had to be forgeries.

Real missions should have produced real photos.

To understand the "why" of faking "landing a man on the Moon by the end of the decade" that had been promised...

http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html

This is where the confusion starts. Jack says that grave doubts exists. He then says he doesn't know if they actually went, but then follows with "..all photos of the Apollo feats had to be forgeries." He then talks about "real missions" and "faking" a landing.... If they were all the images were faked, and discusses faking lunar landing missions, then why can't Jack simply say he believes the lunar landings were faked? Why resort to inuendo and being mealy-mouthed?

Then, of course, we must ask how he has proof that ALL the images were faked. If at least one image can be proven to be true & correct, then Jack's whole proposition has to be placed in doubt.

But the Soviets likely knew that sending a man to the Moon was an immensely difficult task and that JFK's rhetoric was a hollow promise.

http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html

It was indeed a difficult task - and that was part of the reason it was chosen. Both countries would have a roughly even chance of achiving the goal. Yet if the USSR knew it "was a hollow promise", why did they continue on with their own lunar landing programme? By the end of the 1960s, they had developed a lunar orbital craft and a lunar lander. They had astronauts in training for lunar landing missions. What let them down was their launch vehicle, the N-1. It failed it's first flight tests. Even so, and even AFTER the Apollo 11 mission had successfully landed men on the lunar surface, they still persevered with attempts to launch their own mission. If they knew it was impossible, why go to all that trouble? Why divert so much funding to a project that would never be achieved? Why not, if the US missions were "faked", fake their own missions and accompanying images? The US would not be able to call their bluff if the US missions were faked.

He must have thought, "...the experts say we can't go to the Moon like Kennedy promised, but I say we can! We can FAKE IT!"

http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html

Firstly, can Jack show anything where LBJ ever said anything like this? Secondly, the experts did NOT say a lunar landing was impossible - quite the contrary. They knew it was possible with various scenarios. They knew, however, it would take a concerted national effort and a significant amount of money.

It boils down not to just studying the photographs for signs of fakery, though I have examined every available Apollo photo for more than three years (and discovered many fakes).

http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html

It has proven in the preceding pages that Jack has NOT looked at all the available imagery ("What is this big thing on the LM?" to name but one) or the volumes of data available on the missions. Additionally, his claims of "fakes" have been to be flawed, at best - and deceptive, at worst.

Each of the six successful missions landed two astronauts "on the Moon" in a flimsy craft NASA originally had called the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM, later shortened to LM), an unproven craft which never had an opportunity for a lunar landing test flight. But it landed and then took off six times with spectacular "success" on Apollo missions 11 and 12, and 14 through 17...once even landing within 200 feet of a pre-selected target.

http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html

To begin, it was a "flimsy" craft in Jack's opinion only. Remember, Jack has no training or experience in spacecraft (or aeronautical) design. In actual fact, it was very sturdy. It was designed to operate in an airless, low-G environment. It was a combination of design trade-offs between weight, redundency, reliability, and structural integrity.

It was NOT "unproven". Engines, structures, and systems were tested time and time again on Earth. There were unmanned flights of LM test articles in Earth orbit. There was an manned Earth-orbital test of the LM during Apollo 9, and there was the final checkout of the LM during Apollo 10. Apollo 10 closed near the lunar surface but did not land. It tested the descent engine in lunar conditions, it tested the guidance systems, it tested the environmental systems, it tested the abort system and ascent propulsion system. It tested the rendezvous radar and guidance system.

Jack forgets to bring these facts to light.

The principal objective of all six missions was SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH projects to be carried out by the two astronauts.

http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html

This is wrong. The first missions were to prove the systems and ensure extended stay was achievable. The 'J' missions, starting at Apollo 15, were the scientific missions.

The US flag was planted in the moondust on each mission. All of this was done before any experiments were initiated.

http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html

Wrong again. The flag placing was done quite late in most of the latter missions; the prime concern was to gather scientic data. It was done early in the first missions because there was concern about shortened lunar stays; the flag planting was in those cases a bit ceremonial. Jack, you should read the Lunar Surface Mission Plans - they detail what was to be done, what the priorities were, contingency plans, everything like that.

Oddly, not a single photo exists in the public domain (at least that I could find to date) of the astronauts assembling and equipping the LRVs.

http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html

Once again, poor research. There are no still images of the LRV being unloaded from the LM (it was a two-man job, so no-one could take a still photo) but there are the TV video footages of the LRV being deployed from the LM. Once again, Jack omits this little fact. There are MANY images of the LRV being equipped after its deployment.

During the LRV travels ("traverses"), both men rode, and when moving, had no opportunity for photography.

http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html

Once again, wrong. There were many images taken during the traverses. One astronaut drove the LRV, the other had opportunity for taking photographs.

Though I could find no time given by NASA, surely it is reasonable to guess that it took at least an hour to unload, assemble and equip and test a rover?

http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html

Another example of the poor research. The time allowed by the checklist (based on trials done during training) was less than 20 minutes. On Apollo 15, they were to start deploying at 25 mins into the EVA and test drive the LRV at +42 mins. Equipping the LRV did take time, though.

Almost incidental to the main astronaut tasks was PHOTOGRAPHY. Each astronaut had his own camera. (Apart from the Apollo 11 EVA.) It was a square-format specially-built Hasselblad. It was mounted on a chest-plate for the astronaut to operate. The astronaut had to manually set the shutter speed and apertures while wearing bulky, pressurized gloves and without being able to see the controls. The cameras had NO VIEWFINDER, so the astronaut could only guess at what was being photographed. Each camera had a bulk film magazine holding more than a hundred exposures. The film (mainly Ektachrome color film) had a very narrow exposure range, which required PERFECT aperture and shutter settings, because according to NASA, the cameras did not have automatic exposure capability.

http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html

This is a common claim, and is erroneous. The aperture and shutter controls were modified to enable the astronauts to sets them - while wearing gloves - easily. The shots were mostly "pre-set". On their cuff checklists, they had apature and shutter speed settings, and a distance from an object to be photographed. On Earth, they practised this and were able to take good shots without the need for a viewfinder. They became very proficient at this (practice, practice, practice) and did not need to "guess". That being said, not all shots were acceptable. There were misfires and poor shots on most magazines.

The film allowed for a wide margin of error, and the experts for this film type - and Jack is not one of them - can tell you how they allowed for this and so where able to get very good shots in most cases. Planning pays off.

There are multiple references for what I have said, and I'd be glad to provide references for them if anyone would like.

Edited to add:

General overview of the Apollo cameras:

http://history.nasa.gov/apollo_photo.html

Edited May 12, 2006 by Evan Burton

Evan Burton · May 12, 2006

I've put this here because it is a continuation of Jack's Aulis.com work.

Cloud of dust proves fakery of jump salute photo

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_1a.html

Firstly, as I always recommend, don't just take anyones word for events or just accept the images people show you. Do your own research, and make up your own mind about what is correct.

To begin, have a look at the video footage of the two 'jump salutes' made by John Young on the lunar surface:

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/a16salute.mpg

This is a 2.7Mb MPEG of the TV footage, dealing only with the 'jump salutes' by Young. The ALSJ tells us:

The astronauts take each other's pictures beside the flag. Ken Glover writes: “The RealVideo Clip has a frame rate of 15 fps. This clip was produced from a high-resolution AVI file which I captured from the VHS source, but the RealVideo clip itself was optimized for streaming over slow (56k modem) connections and is therefore somewhat degraded in terms of resolution. For students interested in analyzing John's 'Big Navy Salute', I have made a short, 2.7 MB MPEG-1 clip of better resolution and at 29.97 fps, showing only the two jumps.”

The RealVideo clips are available here:

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/video16.html#alsepoffload

Jack says:

... now I have proof that the Hasselblad photo... was a staged photo - not shot at the same time as the video of the same scene, shot from the opposite side with a video camera "remotely operated from Houston"... In the video, "Young" runs, stops, bends his knees and jumps mightily...though he only rises about 18 inches in one-sixth gravity. But as he stops and jumps, he RAISES A HUGE CLOUD OF DUST! The Hasselblad shot shows NO sign of the run, the stop, or the DUST, despite the better lens and camera speed!

The initial problem with Jack's analysis is that he shows you some still images of the jump BEFORE Young has reached the top of his ascent. Take a look at the video again, and pay particular attention to the amount of dust raised when he first jumps and then how much remains when he is at the vertical peak of the jump.

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/a16salute.mpg

You'll notice that he raise a little dust as he walks to his "jump" position, but when he stops there is no dust to be seen. As he jumps, he does indeed leave dust behind his heels - but by the time he reaches the apex of his jump, there is none to be seen (on the video image). As Young takes his second jump, less dust is left behind.

I've made a comparison image of Jack's work and the top of the jump (by my reckoning) from the video. If you look, you'll see that at the top of the jump (left image) Young is a little higher than Jack's image (right). I've added some arrows to highlight the difference in height from the jump.

By the time Young had reached the top of the jump (and after) there was no dust to be seen. Compare the video still image on the left to the image taken by Charlie Duke. They are roughly the same height (do your own investigation to be sure that what I am saying is correct).

Craig has shown some settling dust in the first jump image (AS16-113-18339) which was captured by the camera. The second jump raised less dust and was not captured by the camera.

Overall, it's a little bit of 'smoke & mirrors'. Jack has shown you the images at the start of the jump (where dust is seen), while the Hasselblad image is slightly later.

Jack also mentions the height to which Young jumps; The ALSJ says:

[John bends his knees slightly, springs about a half meter off the ground, and salutes. He is off the ground about 1.45 seconds which, in the lunar gravity field, means that he launched himself at a velocity of about 1.17 m/s and reached a maximum height of 0.42 m. This superb picture is AS16-113- 18339. Note that John's total weight - body, suit, and backpack, is about 30 kilograms or 65 pounds. In Houston, Tony chuckles with delight.]

Now, think about how high you could jump in Earth-normal gravity. Can you reach 18 inches or so? Then put on an EVA suit (even if, for arguements sake, it was simply a lightweight but bulky costume); could you still jump 18 inches or so?

Yet again - Jack is wrong.

Evan Burton · May 12, 2006