Jump to content
The Education Forum

Craig Lamson

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Craig Lamson

  1. dgh01: clear you haven't read HOAX, but that's okay -- as to the "others" I'm not quite as impressed as you seem to be with their "investigations' and/or research -- so sure, and you've never seen the film loaded onto a projector much less PASS through a projector, never held the film in your hand, never seen a frame under a lupe, yet you can tell me, an many others around here (not to mention elsewhere), your positive the film was NOT altered. Nice try! More fetzerisms I see, you guys are like a broken record. Yes I read hoax...got the galleys from Tink, don't you remember? Read and it and then tossed it in the trash where it and all of Fetzers work belongs. Did I say I was positive the film was not altered? Trying to put words in my mouth now eh? The evidence supports it being unaltered. "hoax" offers nothing that changes that. dgh01:How did these "people determine the film was the camera original, the timeline, Gary tell'em it was? You? roflmfao I'm happy with what Roland Zavada had to say. Besides where is the evidence that the film is altered? Whites crackpot work? Costellas study of his interpolated frames? Sheesh... dgh01: didn't realize your problems extend to the english language, No, Jim Fetzer wrote nothing for me -- Now I KNOW you haven't readthe Great Zapruder Film HOAX -- IS the film altered or isn't it, tough to answer? Especially when not many from the film community have a chance to look the question.[/b] Then why do all of your words sound exactly like his? You a clone? Read your book, tossed it in the trash... again see my comments above on the alteration of the film. Zavada has inspected the film. As to you, we dont even know it you have ever been in the lab and made a composite. dgh01: haven't seen one argument disputing the alteration side of things that amounts to a hill of beans. Lots and lots of noise, gnashing of teeth oh yeah! You know, from folks that need attention and recognition, they've no experience in the motion picture field, but they're trying to sound knowledgable and important. Good for you. I feel otherwise. Heres a news flash for you David. Compositing exists outside of the film busiiness and the principals are exactly the same. In fact they came from the still world. I've got hands on experience in making film based composites, from start to finish, in the lab and from behind the camera. Can you say the same or are you just a digital geek. The "film world" means nothing when it comes to composites. BTW, your attempt at creating a z frame in AF sucked. dgh01: yeah, yeah-yeah, I've heard that nonsense before -- let's cut to the chase, nobody on the other side of this debate wants to see ANY testing done on the "alledged" camera original Z-film -- which leaves you with: the best you could do was challenge John Costella humorous "rain sensor" sthick So get off your high horse and actually do something. Miller is right you are all bluster and no action. I dont care if they test the film but it seems pointless to cut it up based on the silly theories your side is making. But since it has been tested, I can live with that. No, Durnavich showed the total weakness of Costellas work. What a joke trying to normalize two 2-d images to the same camera position. Costella needs to spend some time with a real camera. Maybe he should stop by and I can even show him how a shadow works LOL! As to the rain sensors...Costella put a fine point to his being a woo woo. dgh01: is that line from the 'preserver' of history crowd...? "Cribbing from Fetzer..."? rofl, ah, your just jealous -- keep coming back though, you get anything, ANYTHING original -- we'll give it a look [that original enough :-) No its the truth. And the truth is you have nothing that makes giving the film up to you or the rest of the horde meaningful. When you have something other than z frames that have been altered, what 4-5 times via interpolation, then maybe we can talk. upps...missed one... dgh01: the MPI fiasco, those fools! The latest along the line of Z-film alterationists. You do agree they altered the film, correct? Did I say anything about MPI? How about this one. Did Costella alter the Z film? Yes he did. dgh01: if they make money, of course we do them, the company is in business, you know. You shooting triple wide interiors? Your company or are you working on OPM? At least I own my company. Triple wides? What are those? No I shoot RV's, Motorhomes, High End Boats, Automotive. You know stuff that makes money, kind of like rodeos. Gotta run now, need to finish the shot I am working on. Its part of a composite...
  2. "here's where I stand, I'm not positive the film is altered. WHY? Because I can't get access to the film for review and test purposes. MPI for all their know-how, screwed up, why should anyone trust those from years gone by telling ANYONE they have the "alteration" answer". However, based on attacks that I've personally witnessed to those that do believe the film is altered... [although not the only reason why] I'm leaning toward the alteration side of things. From both professional standpoint and personal, for me and others, all leads me to believe something significant is there. If true, the real question then becomes, WHY did the film need alteration?" Wow...did Fetzer write that one for you? Lets review, you dont know if the film has been altered and since YOU have not put your hands on it you cant decide. Never mind others have and concluded its original, you cant trust them. Did I get that part right? And since people defend their stance that the film is unaltered you consider it attack so that means there is a good chance you are on to something. Sheesh Fetzer DID write this for you. And no...the real questions is it real or not. Fetzer wrote that one too eh? "Let's get the Z-film into a lab with R E A L production types, all I need is a few frames for forensic purposes and a new set of 4x5's. After that, the alledged camera original can sit in a box at NARA forever, I don't care. Then we'll recreate Dec 1963 - Jan 1964 optical printing conditions, and make a few changes to a *new* Z-film, game?..." Its been there, you just dont want to believe the results. And why give what amounts to a national treasure to YOU? Based on your gut feeling that since you and others are getting "attacked" that something is amiss? I dont think so. I can clearly understand why others will not provide it to you as well. Why wait to do your "recreation" do it now, make your own. You dont need the zframes to do that. The cameras exist, film can be had, go do your thing. Provide some emperical evidence for a change. You might want to suggest that to the rest of your "horde" as well. Seems all of the work you guys do is a bit shy in that regard. Nice try at a fade dude but you need some original lines. Cribbing from Fetzer aint gonna cut it. You still doing important work like shooting rodeos?
  3. David wrote: "CRAIG you eluded to and suggest; I said the entire film was composited? Why would I have said THAT? " Thats clearly the point of the book on which your name appears. You dont suscribe to the main theory put forward in said book? If not than why not lay out your theory so we can all know exactly where you stand.
  4. Its not about equipment David you know that. Equipment is a red herring. No, its about art. I live in a world thats far more critical than yours. Yours the frames with all the mistakes just roll on by the viewer, filled with action and sound, pulling the viewers attention away. Composited movie films dont stand up to critical viewing. Of course you know that. Is that why you are hesitant to post some of your film work? Or are you just obtuse? No in my world of compositing it has to be more than just "believable". It has to be perfect. My images are high res and the single frame stares you in the face forever. They dont move. There is no sound track to distract you, just a single image that lasts forever. Critical art...and its never critical enough. Thats the issue David. Not optical printers, and .004 accuracy. No, its about people making art. People are not accurate to .004 and thats the problem. I've produced thousands of comps and its always the art that causes the problem, not the equipment. Lets face facts and throw this equipment red herring in the dustbin where it belongs. Hell even in the digital age its still the art that is the problem. Was watching Independence Day the other night and there in the closing scene was Will Smith and his son standing motionless for about 10 seconds in front of a blue screen composite with a the burning alien spacecraft in the background....and a huge black cutline around thier heads..... They had the equipment and they had the budget, but here was the closing scene and the art sucked...as usual. And you want to tell me that they fabricated the entire z film? Fabricated and composited it to such a high degree of perfection that the work is undetectable. Sheesh. Come on back to the real world. So lets talk art David. Lets put your equipment red herring in the dustbin once and for all.
  5. Healy writes: "or you can always ask ME, LOL !! I been compositing for 30 years or so... " Really? How about posting a few frames David, done on film not digital. Give us a nice high rez scan, a drum will do say 1x141 600dpi. Give us one where you changed the background so we can check your cut lines and see how well your soft edge matts worked out. And then give us the production specs. Then...and only then can we judge if YOU have the skill set you say you do. Then perhaps we can talk man to man about compositing on film. Might be nice to see if you have something to offer other than "I read this book...." And oh about White and his Apollo drivel. He's toast David. You next?
  6. Thanks so much for you meaningless (once again) post David. I think I got removed from the board in question because I strongly disputed Whites photographic knowlege. And we all know that cant be allowed on that board now can it. Paid by NASA or any governmental agency or contractor...nope, but I'm so very happy for you. Now do you have anything of value to add to the discussion or are you just going to play your regular game? I'm guessing it will just be more of your guard dog barking. Bark away David, it seems its about all the value you have in this discussion. Oh and by the way why would I need a Moorman cd since the original came through me and went out unedited. But I'm glad to see you find perhaps the best scan available of the Thompson #5 copy neg worthless. It speaks volumes. Perhaps you would prefer to work with White over compressed and soft Zippo? Bye Bye Spot. good doggie.
  7. I would appreciate it if you would both just click on these adverts <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I just clicked on the moonpans ad ad I actually found some mounted and signed apollo panaorama images I might actually be interested in buying. There are a couple that wolld look great in my studio office. Imagine that.
  8. On A11 they only had one camera. DAC images (or footage) didn't count toward the picture count in this case. they are separate. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes they only had one silver coated surface camera, but they had a black hasselblad that was used in the LM positioned at the hatch as a backup if the surface camera failed. There was concern (rightly) that the black camera would be unsuitable for surface work because of its color.
  9. I'd like to know where Jack got the 120 minutes from. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> He made it up. "Let's arbitrarily calculate a MINIMUM time"
  10. White has produced what he calls irrefutable evidence that the Apollo photography was faked with his latest “research” he calls a “TIME STUDY”. Well folks its neither irrefutable nor a time study. Its easy to refute and its nothing more than assumption and false logic. White wants the reader to believe that he has rigorously scoured the official record of Apollo at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, accurately summarized each EVA, accurately calculated the amount of time required for the tasks on each EVA,, accurately applied the results of this “time study” to the amount of photography produced during the EVA and finally accurately concluded the amount of photography was impossible based on his study. He states the Apollo Photographic record is false. A reader might conclude from Whites words that it was a lot of work to find out all the details of each mission to prepare an accurate time study of their activities from which to base his figures and maths. And the reader would have been right had White actually done a “time study” of each mission. It is hard. One is required to read the actual transcripts and plot a detailed time line of the astronauts activities, including taking photographs. One would actually need to find out, for example how long it took the astronauts to take “pan photographs” which are a series of 8-10 images taken while the astronaut turns 360 degrees. It would be tedious work, but it would be required to actual do a proper time study to see if the astronauts could have taken the number of photographs on the lunar surface as stated by NASA. Each mission transcript is many pages long as it details every conversation between the astronauts themselves and as well as with earth. It also includes post flight debriefing information to help the reader further understand what was happening. it’s a daunting task to sift through the transcripts and find the real information. I looked at Apollo 11, the briefest of all the EVA’s. My heavily excerpted summary of the mission transcript ran 12 pages and took me the better part of two evenings.. Imagine the work required to summarize all of the Apollo EVA’s. Some of the missions lasted over three days on the lunar surface. Of course White did none of that. He simply guessed and called it a “time study” In short he did what he always does in regard to his Apollo “research”, he didn’t actually do any research. Here’s an excerpt of Whites work as it applies to Apollo 11: 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. They were likely made in a secret Earthly studio somewhere as a top secret military project. And if all the "Moon photos" of all the "Moon missions" were fakes, the question is 'why?'. Real missions should have produced real photos. Anyone with even elemental math skills and common sense can look at the facts, do the calculations, and come to their own conclusions about the alleged MASSIVE VOLUME of lunar surface photography in such a LIMITED TIME. Here is my conclusion: IT COULD NOT BE DONE Very simply, it amounts to a study known to many businesses...A TIME AND MOTION STUDY. The elementary question is: was it possible to take the known number of photos (from NASA records) in the amount of time available (from NASA records)? Here is my actual count of EVA photos of the six missions: Apollo 11........... 121 So I returned to the Lunar Surface Journal to find how much TIME was available to do all the scientific tasks AS WELL AS PHOTOGRAPHY. Unlike the number of photos, this information is readily available: Apollo 11..........1 EVA, 2 hours, 31 minutes .......(151 minutes) Apollo 11..........Inspect EM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment, operate the TV camera (360 degree pan), establish contact with Earth (including ceremonial talk with President Nixon), unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages, find/document/collect 47.7 pounds of lunar rock samples, walk to various locations, conclude experiments, return to LEM. Let's arbitrarily calculate a MINIMUM time for these tasks and subtract from available photo time: Apollo 11....subtract 2 hours (120 minutes), leaving 31 minutes for taking photos So do the math: Apollo 11.......121 photos in 31 minutes..............3.90 photos per minute Or, to put it more simply: Apollo 11........one photo every 15 seconds The first thing you will notice about Whites work is that he got his summary of the EVA wrong. He didn’t even get the order of events correct, which leads me to believe he never consulted the transcript. Not a good start for a “time study” Lets break down the Apollo 11 eva in approximately 15 minute segments and see what the astronauts did and how many photos they took. The reader should note I have used the exact same source material as did White: http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html Start of the EVA. Armstrong exit’s the LM, deploying the mesa and the TV camera before he climbs down the ladder. Once he is on the surface Aldrin lowers the camera. He takes no pictures Second segment Armstrong takes his first pictures, a pan. He takes a contingentency soil sample and then photographs Aldrin climbing down to the surface. They both test moving on the lunar surface. 20 pictures are taken. Third segment They both continue to test their mobility . Armstrong takes some various photos. They investigate the blast area under the engine and the touchdown probes. Armstrong removes the thermal blanket on the Mesa in preparation for moving the TV camera.. Armstrong moves the TV camera while Aldrin begins to unpack the solar wind experiment. 2 pictures are taken. Forth segment. Aldrin sets up the Solar wind experiment while Armstrong returns form setting up the TV camera and takes pictures of Aldrin with the SWE.. They plant the US flag. They talk to the president. 4 pictures are taken. Fifth segment. They finish their call from the president. They discuss the lighting and the effects of sun and shade on their temperature inside of the spacesuits. Pictures are taken of the soil and boot prints. Aldrin takes his first series of pan photos, using the camera handheld rather than mounted to his suit. 17 pictures are taken. Sixth segment. Aldrin takes some inspection photos of the LM. Armstrong takes a bulk soil sample. Armstrong gets the camera back and takes pictures of the plaque. Armstrong takes photos of his bulk sample area. He takes the famous picture of Aldrin. Aldrin takes the camera back and takes another pan series. Armstrong takes photos with the Gold camera. These photos are not counted as EVA Hasselblad photos. 25 pictures were taken. Seventh segment. Armstrong continues to inspect the LM. Aldrin returns from his pan location and takes a few photos of the footpads and the area under the engine. He takes two pictures showing earth by taking his camera off of the bracket and hand holding it. Armstrong get the camera back and Aldrin goes to work on the Scientific Equipment bay. Aldrin deploys the PSE. Armstrong does another pan series. Aldrin carries the experiments out to the location where they will be set up. Armstrong takes pictures. 29 pictures were taken. Eighth segment. Aldrin and Armstrong finish deploying the experiments. Armstrong takes photos of the experiments. Armstrong goes out to East Crater to take a pan series. Aldrin continues to work on the experiments. Armstrong takes a few more pictures of Aldrin working at the experiments. 19 pictures were taken. Ninth segment. Armstrong and Aldrin close out the EVA. Aldrin climbs up into the LM and Armstrong passes sample and the film up to the LM. Just before Armstrong sends the Hasselblad film magazine up he fires off six random frames to assure that his last pan images don’t get light struck when he removes the magazine. Armstrong climbs the ladder, enters the LM and the EVA is over. 6 pictures were taken. The first thing we notice is that for this mission there were 4 segments where the work load was such that either no pictures were taken or less than 6 pictures were taken. That’s a bit over 1 hour of time where only 12 photographs were taken. White suggests in his study that the work load was such that there should have been two hours with no photography. Lets lay it out simply, the segments and the number of photos: 1. 0 photos 2. 20 photos 3. 2 photos 4. 4 photos 5. 17 photos 6. 25 photos 7. 29 photos 8. 19 photos 9. 6 photos Its pretty clear from this summary that the Apollo 11 astronauts DID NOT have to take 3.9 photos per minute as White claims. His theory has been refuted. So it seems White has been hoisted on his own petard. The skeletons in his closet have been reveled. It has been shown that he did no actual time study but rather did a “guess study “ He has failed to properly research the subject before jumping off the deep end, as usual.. John Costella on White’s time study: "Apollo debates are usually dominated by physics arguments which can be confusing for most people. Jack White's new analysis is breath-taking in its simplicity: now anyone can understand the evidence and come to their own conclusion." Sorry John, but its more like the analysis from a simpleton. Yes we can understand the evidence and come to our own conclusion. White failed in miserably in his attempt to prove the Apollo photography fake. Whites latest work speaks volumes about him and those touting his latest work. So you the reader can now decide. Does the rest of White’s “time study” hold water, or is it full of holes like his Apollo 11 summary? And now its White’s turn. You want to make this theory work you are going to have to go back to square one and actually do a time study of each mission. Na…never gonna happen.
  11. If you look at the photographic record as a whole you will find a great many images that suffer from poor focus. That being said, the lens was a great one. Depth of focus is controlled by three things, the point of focus as set on the lens, the f-stop used, and the focal length of the lens. The closer you focus, the less DOF you have, the less f-stop you use the less DOF, the longer the focal the less DOF. So lets look at how this applies to Apollo. The basic Lunar camera was fitted with a 60mm lens, which is a moderate wide angle lens. For everything other than shade pictures the f-stop was in the f11 to f16 range. So we have a shorter lens and a high f-stop which will produce a fairly large DOF. Tha astronauts used the zone focusing method to focus their photos. This means they selected a focus point on the lens (it has a scale and pointer to allow for this) and took their pictures. I have a Hasselblad lens right here to give you some example of the DOF at various focus points. My lens is a 50mm which is slightly shorter than the 60mm used on the moon so my figures will give a slight increase in the DOF of the moon lens. Lets use the f-stop that gives the greatest DOF for this example which is f-16 If we set our focus point at 30", the DOF will give us a photograph with an infocus area from 26" to 36" If we set our point of focus at 48", the DOF will give us a photograph with an in focus area from 36" to 6 feet. If we set our point of focus at at 10 feet the DOF will give us a photograph with an in focus area from 5 feet to infinity. So with a 50mm lens on a Hasselblad in bright sunlight we only need three preset focus points to give us sharp images from 26" to infinity. Thats how it was done on the moon, and its still done here on earth everyday by photographers.
  12. Evan, Well said Sir! While we differ on this issue, I am pleased to see you are willing to discuss this in a civilised manner. I believe Jack has produced the definitive Apollo photo analysis to date, worthy of serious consideration and discussion. If you, Mr. Lamson, and particularly John M are prepared to respond to posts on this site without personally attacking Mr. White, then yes, I would dearly love to discuss Jack's work. Bottom line, leave the bitchy, snide, and sarcastic comments for the Apollohoax Forum and let's use this forum as it was intended. Okay, I don't have a whole lot of letters after my name but I did go to school once, well twice actually but the second day was a sports carnival. No need to "dumb down" your replies. Finally, regarding Dr. Costella, having met the man several times, I can say there is absolutely no clandestine relationship between Mr. White or Dr. Costella. Indeed, Dr. Costella is very impartial regarding the Apollo missions and it took quite an effort on my behalf to get him to even consider looking into the issue. Bill <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I believe my dealings with you have been fair and civil, do you not agree? White however is another story and he gets back what he dishes out. A lie will aways be a lie and it will be noted as such. Continued use of "proofs" that dont pass established physical or scientific facts, is just disinformation and will be noted as such. I have no problem with healthy discussion and a desire to learn, I'm open and I expect the same from those I discuss issues with. I do however have no patience with those who just want to believe, facts and science be damned. I understand you are a Jack White fan, from JFKR. Thats no problem, as you are an honest broker. As to Whites latest works, which you label as "definitive Apollo photo analysis to date", exactly what are you refering to? His posted photo research or his time study? If its the time study perhaos you can give us your thoughts on his methods and assumptioms, and more importantly his calculations on the time available for photography by the astronauts. Craig
  13. Bark bark bark...got any teeth David? Making someone nervous? Classic White defence. Cant you at least be original? Nervous not. Delighted to see White "photo research" posted in a public place so it can now be shown to be crap? OH yea! Keep your little ct brain going David, and maybe next time you can actully try and defend some of Jacks work instead of just barking... We are just getting started on Jacks Aulis post, not going anywhere for some time.
  14. While I tend to believe that Jack's research is flawed, I am nevertheless intrigued by the sudden appearance of these attack dogs, John and Craig. Do you guys post on any other topic? Are you NASA groupies? If so, what do think of the trajectory research performed for the HSCA by NASA's Thomas Canning? His mistakes were far more damaging than Jack's. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I have only a minor interest in the JFK case. And if you research you will see my "sudden apperance" is nothing of the sort. I joined this forum well before White bagan posting on Apollo, originally to post on the Moorman thread where I have some history. However, the thread was buried deep in the pile and I let it go. Maybe I'll get to it since its David Healy and Jack White making silly claims. Anyways, I did'nt visst the forum for some months and when I did I saw. WHites Apollo posts. I was quite happy for a number of reasons. 1. I find Whites work to be some of the worst "photographic research" I have ever seen and quite frankly I take pleasure in offering readers an alternative to his "work" 2. This is the first time Jack White has brought his apollo work outside his protected lair of JFKReaearch. I first when to JFKResearch because someone with Jacks permission was posting some limited examples of his apollo material to the Bad Astronomy Bulliten Board. Of course no one could converse with thte author of the work, since he was not there. Once I found out where he was I went there to challenge his works directly. Needless to say he was not pleased with that turn of events. Nor were his guard dogs. I was attacked by White and his goons from the word go, because I was posting emperical tests and factual research that was making their "golden boy" look pretty bad. I'm more than happy to return the favor. 3. Now we have Jacks works in a public forum and even better yet his "research" is now published on the Aulis website, making it fair game and more importantly fair use for rebuttal. 4. Apollo groupie? Sure I guess. But no more than the JFK groupies. Is is a problem to find the Apollo program interesting? And oh by the way I was happy toi tell my friends about my find...Jack White on a open forum. 5. So why go after White and his research? First he is not an intellectually honest person. If he were he would admit his mistakes, such as the identical photos which have been shown to be not identical on this forum but included in his Aulis piece. Second he would defend his work rathaer than just name calling and hiding. Hes just not an honest broker. Its pretty easy for White, he makes up a silly claim and posts it, once again claiming to have found Apollo fake. His ignorant minnions pat him on the back, never bothering to check the validity of his claims, because he s Jack White, a photographic god. So someone has to take an hour or more to do the research, do the experimentation, write up a rebuttal, all to show thats White is once again full of bull. Now all of this would be fine if White were honest and actually admitted it when he makes a mistake, and removed his faulty claim. However thats not the case. So I do this for personal reasons and for entertainment, and for the pleasure of seeing White watch his works being attacked in a public place without his guard dogs (well except for Healy who is all bark and no bite). Clearly White has every right to record his thoughts and make them public. And its the right of those who disagree to express that disagreement, be it JFK or Apollo. Clearly the goal is to bring the truth to the light of day.
  15. 6. White sez: "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." Lie! Apollo 11: 228 color surface images, 107 b/w surface images Apollo 12: 280 color surface images, 303 b/w surface images Apollo 14: 178 color surface images, 269 b/w surface images Apollo 15: 393 color surface images, 761 b/w surface images Apollo 16: 726 color surface images, 1061 b/w surface images Apollo 17: 849 color surface images, 1460 b/w surface images Total color surface images: 2654 Total b/w surface images: 3961 So White tells us MOST of the images were color Ektachrome photos when in reality MOST of the photos were b/w! 1307 more b/w photos were taken than color photos! People actually BELIEVE this guy? Exposure: B/w film has a HUGE over and under exposure latitude so White comments fail on this point in regards to b/w film. Color ektachrome film has an over exposure latitude of about 1/2 stop, and an under exposure latitude of about 1.5 stops. It also has the ability to be push or pull processed to compensate for either over or under exposure. Its common photographic practice to do a "clip test", cutting off a small portion of the leader to test process prior to processing the entire batch of film so if it needs pushed or pulled you can do that. WHite also knows that underexposed ektachrome film can be lightened in the duplication process (and all of the apollo flims were duplicated) to normailze exposure. Since some of his JFK work is based on this process he cannot deny it. I've been a professional advertising photographer for 25 years and the use of extachrome film is the standard in advertising. I know ektachrome film inside and out, and the exposure of this film in the apollo application was just fine. Exposure setting based on the "sunny 16 rule" was used on the moon and its a very accurate method of setting camera exposure. White is just full of crap on this one.
  16. 5. White sez: "The astronaut had to manually set the shutter speed and apertures while wearing bulky, pressurized gloves and without being able to see the controls" Bunk! The controls were designed so the astronauts could easily operate them with their gloves. On a Hasselblad camera (ever used one Jack?) all the controls are on the lens barrel. One ring sets the shutterspeed, one the f-stop and one the focus. All of them on the Apollo cameras had click stop detents for ease of use and had extended paddle style levers to make adjustments easy. In addition the astronauts COULD see the controls since they were on the top surface of the lens barrel and the helmets allowed for free head movement inside of them and had a field of view downward that allowed for seeing the controls on the camera. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...1-S69-31108.jpg White is making stuff up out of thin air!
  17. 4. White sez: The US flag was planted in the moondust on each mission. All of this was done before any experiments were initiated. Wrong. On A 15 for example they spent the entire first day of EVA doing experimental work and finished the day without planting the flag. On the second EVA they went the entire EVA working and only planted the flag ant the end of that second EVA. EVA-2 Close-out Corrected Transcript and Commentary Copyright © 1996 by Eric M. Jones. All rights reserved. Last revised 8 February 2005. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MP3 Audio Clip ( 3 min 24 sec ) by David Shaffer 148:32:16 Irwin: Okay, Joe, I'm back at the LM. (Pause) 148:32:23 Allen: (Making a rare mis-identification because of the static) Okay, Dave, copied you back at the LM, parking the Rover normally, and we're standing by for TV again. 148:32:32 Irwin: No, that's Jim. Jim is back. I don't know, Dave might be close. 148:32:39 Scott: I'm getting on the Rover now Jim. I'm just parking your TV for you. (Long Pause 148:50:46 Allen: Jim, this is Houston. 148:50:51 Scott: Okay, go ahead, Joe. 148:50:53 Allen: Roger, Jim. At your leisure, we'd like you to deploy the American flag, please. 148:52:50 Allen: And, Jim, if possible, we'd like for you to come around north of the Rover there to deploy it, and we're tracking the camera that direction. 148:53:00 Irwin: You tell me when I'm in a good position. 148:53:20 Irwin: Suppose that's too...(Stops to listen to Joe) (Long Pause) [scott - "Before we went, we staged the orientation of the flag and the Rover in the simulator building at the Cape. We had a plan on where to put everything, and the only problem was, when we finally got to it, the Rover was facing the flag instead of sideways. And I think that's because they were concerned about (battery) temperatures. But, other than that, the location of where Jim was and the flag was and the LM and the Rover was all staged before we went."] [Jim puts the staff on the scuff mark and leans on it.] 148:53:44 Irwin: Okay, I'm pushing the staff in. 148:53:46 Scott: Okay. (Pause) [Jim gets the staff in about 6 inches (15 cm).] 148:53:59 Irwin: I'll hit it a few times so it'll stay up here for a few million years. 148:54:02 Scott: That's a good idea. (Pause) [Jim drives the staff another 10 to 20 cm into the ground with six blows delivered with the side of the hammer. He grips the hammer with his thumb about 10 cm above the head.] 148:54:07 Irwin: Of course, it might make it too low. No, I don't think so. (Long Pause) [Jim takes the hammer to the back of the Rover for stowage and, off-camera, unfurls the flag. The flag is attached to telescoping crossbar which will hold the flag out from the staff. The crossbar is attached to the top of the staff with a lokcing hinge.] 148:54:28 Scott: Pretty. You've got to admit. (Pause) Okay. (Long Pause) [Jim comes back into view with the flag fully assembled. He puts the upper staff into the lower section.] 148:55:08 Scott: Let's see. 148:55:09 Irwin: Probably want to swing it around perpendicular to the (TV) camera, huh? 148:55:15 Scott: Okay! It's pretty good! Why don't you stand there? [because the flag is translucent and is ENE of the TV, it is the brightest object in the scene and forces the automatic iris to close almost all the way. Dave and Jim are nearly lost in the resulting darkness.] 148:55:21 Irwin: Let me get up on the high part. [Jim gets up on a slight rise east of the flag.] 148:55:23 Scott: Okay. Gee, I wish we had color (film). 148:55:24 Irwin: Yeah. 148:55:27 Allen: We'll have color tomorrow, Dave... 148:55:28 Scott: That's great just to look at it there.
  18. 3. White sez: "The principal objective of all six missions was SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH projects to be carried out by the two astronauts." Wrong. On Apollo 11 for example the principal mission was TO TEST THE LM, by landing on the surface of the moon and to return it to the command module.
  19. 2. From his "time study": "The battery-powered rovers had a top speed of about 8 mph, only slightly faster than walking...much like a golf cart. During the LRV travels ("traverses"), both men rode, and when moving, had no opportunity for photography." Yet in his photography section he points out a photo of tv camera on the rover and tells us that there are plenty of images taken by the Astronauts ( which is true) while riding in the rovers. So which is it Jack? No photography while riding in the rovers or lots of photos while riding in the rovers?
  20. I'm starting a new thread to point out the disinformation and white lies in Whites time study piece on aulis. As you find them just keep adding to the list. 1 White sez: "I visited several official NASA websites to find HOW MANY PHOTOS WERE TAKEN on the surface of the Moon. Amazingly, NASA AVOIDS THIS SUBJECT almost entirely. Two days of searching documents and text were fruitless. But Lunar Surface Journal, one of the sites, lists every photo with its file number. So I undertook to make an actual count of every photo taken by astronauts DURING EXTRA-VEHICULAR ACTIVITY (EVA), the time spent on the surface out of the LEM." Well every image is available here: And they tell you exactly how many images on each roll were surface images. This is not rocket science research, in fact I have posted the link on this forum a number of times. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/ But even better yet, according to White "NASA avoids this subject". Again a bald faced lie. At the very website White claims is devoid of this information, they link to the scans of the NASA summary of the photography record for most flights which give the information White says is unavailable. The flights without indexes link to LPI. Maybe White was too busy looking for alien footprints to do any actual research.... http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/ Its listed as the Photography Reference for mission 11 and linked Mission 12 No photo index listed, but a link to the lpi site is listed. mission 14 no photo index listed but a link to the lpi site is listed Mission 15 Photo index is listed and linked Mission 16 Photo index is listed and linked Mission 17 Photo index is listed and linked. Now this was tough to find, I guess it took me at least 15 miniutes to gather this information. Jack spent two days and missed this? What else did he miss? Time will tell.
  21. I just went through Whites Aulis "research". I don't think I have every laughed so hard in my life. This thing is filled with so much disinformation, lack of photographic knowlege and down right lies, its almost too funny for words. Poor Jack can't even keep his own story correct. One example: From his "time study": "The battery-powered rovers had a top speed of about 8 mph, only slightly faster than walking...much like a golf cart. During the LRV travels ("traverses"), both men rode, and when moving, had no opportunity for photography." Yet in his photography section he points out a photo of tv camera on the rover and tells us that there are plenty of images taken by the Astronauts ( which is true) while riding in the rovers. So which is it Jack? No photography while riding in the rovers or lots of photos while riding in the rovers? LOL. This is going to be like shooting fish in a barrel and by the time its done Whites reputation will be in tatters on the floor. BTW Jack, I'm NOT going to be running away with my tail between my legs but you just might. LOL>
  22. How can this be, WHite and Clarks say it can't be so! LOL!
  23. I would be interested to see the final results of your study. However based on the shape of the white object, if it were a lens it would be a very large one and pointed directly downward. It has the expected shape of a pan light.... http://www.pbase.com/infocusinc/studio
  • Create New...