Dave Greer

Why do you choose to ignore other factors? Such as astronaut activity around the rover? This has been proven beyond doubt to produce both boot-prints, which can cover tracks, and also kicked up dust, which can also cover up tracks. There is plenty of documented evidence, both photographic and video, that supports this. In this particular image, you may have failed to notice the rover tracks leading up to the rover, also visible in AS17-134-20436. Would you have us believe that NASA drove the rover up to a certain point, then lifted it up with a hoist, and moved it forward a few feet so the rear wheels coincided with where the tracks finished? Or is a more likely scenario that the tracks inbetween the wheels were obscured by astronaut bootprints and kicked up dust - a simple, benign and plausible phenomenon that has many provable examples in the Apollo record? This is just an indicator of your inability to understand perspective and how it affects the appearance of parallel lines. Take an example that should be easy for you to understand, railway tracks. I hope you agree that they are parallel. I hope you also agree that they appear to converge in this image:- http://www.nma.gov.au/shared/libraries/images/exhibitions/looking_around/royal_flying_doctor_service/new_railway_tracks_heading_north_400/files/5386/ASPRFDS07.jpg If you agree so far, then you must agree that two lines that are clearly parallel can appear to converge dependent on the viewing angle (i.e. perspective). Please explain why this does not apply to shadows. Looking at the image Jack has "analysed", his methodology is bogus. This has been pointed out to him several times. It's a technique that has been used to fool laypeople at least since Percy started his Aulis investigation, possibly longer. For example, take the horizontal line he has drawn. What is this meant to represent? If he is trying to figure out where the light source is, then he must draw a straight line from a point on a shadow, to a point on an object that cast that part of the shadow. If there is a single light source, then any lines drawn using this method should intersect at a point that corresponds to the origin of the light source. Here's an Earth-bound example to show what I mean. You can clearly make out which part of the tip of each shadow corresponds to which part of the fence. Drawing straight lines between these points should create an intersection where the light source is - this will either be in the image itself, or outside. Using the same methodology on the Apollo image in question (rough and ready):- Jack's analysis fails because it is fundamentally flawed. There is no deception by Evan, only a failure to understand by you. Using the method prescribed above will eliminate the need for a flat surface, (providing you can accurately determine which part of an object causes which part of a shadow). Please explain how this is proof that front-screen projection was used to fake the Apollo images. Drawing a yellow line across a local horizon, calling the bottom half "studio set" and the top half "projected background" does not constitute proof. Was the image linked below faked using the same method? Does the mere act of declaring it a fake, and having "no serious doubt that that this is how they faked the images of Interstate 80 West", give my argument any credence whatsoever? Clearly not. So why does it have credence in declaring Apollo images faked? http://www.aaroads.com/west/nevada080/i-080_wb_exit_158_01.jpg

John Have you seen the discussion on image AS11-40-5903 on the ALSJ? Someone has attempted the kind of analysis you're talking about on the famous image of Buzz.

You made no attempt to address the evidence, so there was nothing to rebut. I provided an image that showed many similarities with the Apollo image in terms of lens flare effects. Can you or Jack or anyone else demonstrate why the lens falre shown in the Apollo image cannot possibly be lens falre, or some other mundane artefct, when we see such things in other images?

Another point I fail to understand is, why do the fiducial shadows prove that the photos were shot on Earth? Jack? Anyone?

Give 'em enough rope...

I found this photo of the Sun colliding into a church tower, and exploding. Anyone who uses the excuse of "lens flare" is clearly a disinformationist, or a blind, lying fool. It bears absolutely zero resemblance, in any way, shape or form to this Apollo image.

You're not meant to "believe" anyone. You're meant to use critical thinking, and do your own research, to examine any claims made on this or any other forum.

Heres an interesting fact Dave. The sky is not "blacked in" at least not in the normal sense of taking a paint brush or other tool and painting it black. Try this. Take an image from gateway, and adjust tbe levels or curves to make it look like the same image at AIG. If you do this the scanner noise in the sky goes away. It gets nice and black. With this adjusted image we KNOW there was no retouching to make the sky black. Now take this image, which is approx 4000+ pixels square and reduce the size to approx 2400 pixels, the size of the high res images at AIG. Save this file as a jpg at level 5 or 6. Now if you take this image and do a levels "enhancement" ...low and behold, you find what Jack and Duane call indications of retouching! However all you have found is the artifacts left by the size reduction and the jpg compression save. Nothing sinister, nothing to hide, just the results of image processing. What we DID find however is that the "alterationists" like Duane and Jack don't have the first clue what it is they think they are doing. But really, most of us already knew that.... Thanks Craig, I'll try this when I get home.

Err, to make it as easy as possible for anyone on the forum to find the highest resolution version of that image, which is a scan of the film roll itself, without any processing applied? In other words, one that is a close to the original as we're likely to get online? See above. You haven't ascertained what processing the image from the Project Apollo Image Gallery has been put through. That's why I gave the link to the LPI site that explains how much the catalogue images have been processed. If you don't know what processing has been applied, how can you possibly make judgements about whether "anomalies" are evidence of fakery, or more mundane artefacts that we know exist and are widely documented? For example, look back at the image you initially thought was obviously faked, but Jack showed was scanner noise (since the same mundane artefacts were visible in the shadow of the crater). Had the Earth been visible in the sky, it's quite plausible that a technician somewhere may have said, "OK, let's make this image look a bit nicer, we'll mask out the Earth, then black out the rest of the sky." You'd then be left with an image that shows a very similar effect to the one seen in the image under discussion. How can it have been removed from a scan of the original film roll that shows no evidence of tampering, but is visible in a version of the image whose provenance you don't know, but has likely been processed in a similar way to those images on the LPI?

Jack What is the URL that Duane downloaded this image from? For example, if he downloaded it from the LPI, then it should not be used for scientific analysis. Taken from their own website:- Scanning And Image Processing Background Information on the Production of the Images used in the Apollo (Handheld/Still) Imagery Catalog This catalog was created using a set of images received from the NASA Johnson Space Center. The images were created as follows: The Apollo film was scanned using a video camera, with a resolution of over 700 lines, to create a digital file. Each frame was digitized as a 24 bit color image at 756 x 486 pixels, producing a file of approximately 1.1 megabytes in Targa format. The Targa images were then processed to produce a 640 x 480 image at 72 ppi in JPEG (JPG) format. These images were also (significantly) compressed, reducing the final file size to about 40 kilobytes on average. These images were further processed by the LPI as follows: They were cropped to match the original proportions of the image on the original film. This also had the effect of removing some of the curved edges introduced in the original scanning process. The images then received some "color" processing. This was done because the aging of the film had altered the original colors captured when the film was exposed. In the case of the images on black and white film, the "color shifting" was removed by grayscaling the images. For the images on color film, a generic color processing formula, arrived at by tweaking representative images by hand, was applied in an attempt to shift them back closer to their original colors. The resulting images were then saved again in JPEG format, with a small amount of compression, at 450 x 450 pixels to create the browse images and at 120 x 120 pixels to create the thumbnail images used in the catalog. Because of all this processing, these catalog images should not be used for research purposes. They should only be used to select and identify images for use in a research project. Higher resolution products should be obtained for use in any scientific investigation(s). Source It looks as if the image you've used is one that suffered from a certain amount of scanner noise, so the sky was blacked out (except for the Earth of course) If the image was obtained from a different site, have you contacted them to find out the exact provenance of the image, as detailed above for the LPI catalogue images? Why don't you try doing the same analysis on a high resolution scan of the film roll itself, which you can download from the Gateway to Astronaut photography of Earth (the click on request). Since these images are scans taken directly from the film roll itself, without any post-processing applied. There is no cropping. You can see scanner noise in the sky (which is to be expected). I did, and there is no evidence that the Earth was "pasted in". If, as you insist, it was pasted in, then you need to admire the attention to detail of NASAs team of photo fakers. When they pasted the Earth in on the next but one image, AS17-134-20473, they cunningly blurred it in exactly the same way the rest of the image is blurred.

No. Proving the sky was blacked out does not mean that the ORIGINAL image was not genuine, and that is all that we're interested in: the ORIGINAL images. Scanner noise tends to be more apparent in large areas of black, as you showed in your study of AS15-85-11425. Blacking the sky hides scanner noise which is present in most scans of images to a greater or lesser degree. You can see it in every high-res scan of Apollo images available on the Gateway to Astronaut Photograph website - the images are taken from scans of the actual films rolls, and haven't had any processing applied to them. Check out this website that discusses scanner noise. Such artefacts become an inseparable part of the image in all scans. With regular daylight material these artefacts should never normally become visible, however they have potential to become visible when stretching contrast and doing other enhancement work to thin astro negatives. The more that an image needs to be enhanced, the more that scanner artefacts become visible. I'm doing no such thing, please don't put words into my mouth.

Don't know the answer to that one John, maybe someone else can help out.

Jack I'm not sure what you proved here, other than the sky was blacked out of this version of the image to remove scanner noise?

There are many similar examples across the Apollo surface photography. I showed you 5 in this one pan. Only if the lenses were always coated in dust throughout the entire duration of each EVA. They cleaned the cameras at the end of each EVA, and also had a brush for dusting lenses during EVAs (there is video footage on the ALSJ of them dusting the TV lens, for example). SCOTT: I think the camera would be better off if we’d protect it a little bit better. We used the lens brush on the cameras, and they were very good. IRWIN: On the TV also. SCOTT: On the TV also. The lens brush is really a good brush. It cleaned it off very well. The dust brush, to clean off the suits seemed to work pretty good. It got the gross dirt off. It didn’t get everything. I guess it also worked quite well on the LRV and the LCRU mirrors – cleaned them off pretty well. Source You may call them lame attempts, but you can't offer any evidence why those explanations are false. If Jack hadn't posted his latest study, you'd still be thinking the scanner noise was stars, and accusing everyone else of offering "lame excuses".

I'll say it again, the 70mm refers to the film format, or the width of the film, not the focal length of the lens. The 80mm lens as never used on the surface during Apollo 17, it was only ever used from the Command Module. (For the sake of accuracy, in my previous post, the other lens used on Apollo 17 should have read 500mm). According to all the sources I can find, there was NO photograph taken from the surface during Apollo 17 that used the 80mm lens. Those details aside, the facts still stand, in the photos that allegedly show a pasted in Earth, they either don't show any of the lunar surface, or they show the top edge of the South Massif, (which is considerably higher than where the horizon would otherwise be). IIRC one image may show the horizon and the Earth at the same time: this one was taken with the camera held at an approximate 45 degree angle: the diagonal filed of view is clearly greater than the horizontal or vertical field of view. The terminology can be confusing since they use the same units, so I advise reading up on the difference between film format of a camera (e.g. 70mm, or 35mm on Apollo), and focal length of a lens (e.g. 60mm, 80mm, 250mm, 500mm).

Appatrently you can't read either.. The camera used for Apollo 17 had a 70MM standard lens with an 80MM adaptor.. It was NOT a 60MM lens, like Lamson claimed. 80 mm f/2.8 Lens. Standard or normal lens for the 70 mm camera with 2-1/4 x 2-1/4-inch film format. Used for general still photography when a wide angle or telephoto view is not required. Focuses from 3 feet to infinity. Has built-in shutter with speeds from 1 second to 1/500 second. Field of view, each side, is approximately 38 x 38 degrees. The 70mm refers to the film format (i.e. the width of the film), NOT the focal length of the lens. The lunar surface phtography was all done with either 60mm lenses, or 250mm lenses. As previously pointed out to you, the 80mm lems was used from the Command Module, for example when they were in Earth orbit. As has also been pointed out to you, some of the images under discussion show that top of the South massif, which is not same as the horizon the author calculated. In addition, several of the images he posed didn't even show the horizon.

Jack Looks like you clicked on the mission name, which just gives a selection of images (including training images, pre-flight, post-flight etc). If you click on Full Hasselblad Magazines, then select the magazine number, all the images are there, including your image. Here's the link.

Hurt feelings? Thicker skinned than that. Disappointed by you? Yeah I guess so. You can't on the one hand be accusing someone in public of deliberately and dishonestly trying to stop the truth getting out, while in private behaving in a friendly manner. I'm sorry, but to me that's just a bit too weird for my tastes.

Duane You've really let yourself down here. One minute you're emailing me music and spoof videos, coming across all chummy-chummy, the next minute you're libelling me on a public forum. There's no need. We should all be capable of discussing the evidence in a civil manner, and agreeing to disagree where necessary. By all means, attack with gusto any evidence that is presented (you don't seem to be doing that), but is there really any need to resort to these tactics? I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt (we all have bad hair days), but if this is how you truly feel about me, then don't bother pretending to be friendly in future.

I still don't understand why that explanation is wrong. I've presented evidence supporting the claim, surely if I'm wrong you can show me why the evidence I've supplied is flawed, and why Jack's theory of a poorly lit back-drop fits the evidence better, rather than mundane dust on lens? Hopefully this will demonstrate what I mean. (In the lower set of images, the grey area indicates the location of where the lighter area would be, obviously it wouldn't be solid grey). If you disagree, what exactly do you disagree with? That dust can't get on the lens? That it wouldn't affect the image in the way seen (if so, why?) Or something else? I'm just seeking clarification as to why you think dust on the lens doesn't explain the smudge artefact, but a poorly lit backdrop does. Cheers

A 17 year old English kid has been banned from visiting America FOR LIFE for sending an abusive email to the president. Apparently, the FBI intercepted the email, contacted British police, who came round to his house, photographed him, and told him he was baned from visiting the US for life. Source OK, the guy was an idiot, and he was drunk. Which I agree is no excuse. At 17 years old, legally he is still a child. Does he really deserve to be banned from the "Land of the Free" for his entire life for showing bad taste and poor judgement while under the fluence? More importantly, under what jurisdiction can the UK Police photograph him and send his details to the FBI? If he'd been 18, would the FBI have applied for him to be extradited to the US to face trial for making threats against the president? I hereby confess to replacing the US flag with a pair of Union Jack boxer shorts on the morning of July 4th, 1988, at the summer camp I attended in Pennysylvania. Am I going to be banned from the US for such a flagrant violation of US flag regulations? Or worse still, extradited for such an ostentatious display of pro-colonialism? I'll keep you informed. Unless you read about it first. I'll start packing for Guantanemo now.

Duane If you think I'm wrong about the "dust on the lens" issue, please explain why I've been disingenuous. I've shown evidence that supports my claim (several photos from the same pan showing the "artefact" in the same place relative to the frame, which is consistent with it being dust on the lens, but inconsistent with it being a light shining on a backdrop. I'll ask you nicely to please address the actual evidence I've presented, and show why that is wrong. Thanks

Oh I agree! Anyone who believes everything all politicians says is indeed very naive. Why you would say that when I clearly said or inferred no such thing (about myself) is beyond me. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you weren't just trying a cheap slur, but mis-read or mis-understood what I wrote. It's on the record that Obama proposed that NASA and the Dept of Defence space programme should effectively merge: that infers that at present they are separate entities in terms of management structure and budget allocation(that doesn't preclude them working together). Either you know more than him, or he is lying for some reason, and only pretending he wants them to merge for reasons that are unclear.

As naive as President Obama, since it was he that suggested they merge! Which seems to support the notion that they have at least some degree of seperation. Operation Paperclip took place in 1945. NASA was created in 1958. Von Braun worked for the US Army in the intervening period, before joining NASA. I suppose by extension you could say that NASA was created indirectly by the recruitment policies of Operation Paperclip. Clearly there is a degree "cross-pollination" between NASA and the military, but in terms of its present structure, you must be privy to better knowledge than your president, since he is the one who wants NASA and the Dept of Defence space programmes to merge to save money!

Like I said, a purely semantic argument at best , borderline disingenuous at worst.