Dave Greer

Duane has proposed that many or most Apollo photos were shot on a stage-set, with a painted backdrop some 50 or so feet away. If this were true, we should be able to find evidence, rather than subjective opinion, to support this position. Similarly, there should be evidence to support the hypothesis that the photos really were taken on the moon. For example, on Apollo 15, there are (among others) 2 photos of Mount Hadley taken approximately 40 minutes apart according to the ALSJ, but within a few metres of each other, looking in the direction of Mount Hadley. In each of the photos linked below, Mount Hadley is partially lit, top centre. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-85-11427HR.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-85-11453HR.jpg Part of the mountain is in shadow - but as the sun is rising, we would expect to see minor changes in shadow lengths on Mount Hadley. Specifically, shadow lengths should shorten as the sun rises - so shadow lengths should shorten fron 11427 to 11453. Here's a crop from 11427. And a crop of the same area from 11523. (There has been some rotation and minor scaling performed in Photoshop to ensure the surface features match, otherwise no changes to the crops). Quite clearly, you can see the terminator change position from one photo to the next, exactly as you would expect if this was a lunar photo. The animated GIF below shows this effect quite clearly. I think this level of detail would be exceedingly difficult to fake using the kind of painted mountain backdrops that have been proposed. Hence, I see this as good evidence that the photo is genuine, rather than faked. Comments/criticisms invited.

You said CONDUCTION FROM THE LUNAR SURFACE. The direct sun rays ON THE PHOTO would create great heat. Paper is a poor conductor compared to metal, but the paper molecules would heat the paper by conduction. Checking internet sources... The ONLY two ways that the photo is going to be heated, is conduction of heat from the lunar surface, and radiated heat directly (and to a very minor extent indirectly) from the sun. I think Evan's post should answer your question more than adequately.

1. Why would something shrink-wrapped swell and burst? Surely that would necessitate air bubbles? Why can't shrink-wrapping eliminate this? There could well be some outgassing but I don't see why this would be an issue. 2. I quite agree the photo would fade in time, but this photo was taken pretty much as soon as the family snap was put on the surface. How quickly would you expect it to noticeably fade? Seconds? Minutes? I'm guessing days or weeks. If you think you have a better guess, let's hear it. 3. A conventional oven contains air, and heats mainly by convection. No air on moon, no convection. Only heat would be conduction from the lunar surface, and infrared radiation from the sun. Would that be enough to frazzle the photo in a short space of time? I doubt it, but can't offer any evidence to support it. Can you offer any evidence to support your claim? No disinformation for you Duane, just my own opinion. Ever heard of CONDUCTION? Try putting a piece of metal on the ground in the sun. It will get VERY HOT FROM CONDUCTION...not convection...not radiation. Various materials have better conductivity than others. Jack Jack Read my post properly. I list conduction as one of the two mechanisms that would cause the photo to heat up. How much it would heat by, is a moot point. I've no intention of baking some sand in an oven to find out.

Fair enough. I just find it surprising that you place so much faith in your interpretation of Apollo images when you admit to having very little photography experience. You're entitled to your opinion on how the Apollo images seem to you, and to a certain extent I can sympathise with why you say what you are saying. Cursory examination of some Apollo photos do look peculiar. When you study them in enough detail, the clues are there to prove their validity - at least as far as I'm concerned. A very quick example - http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-85-11453.jpg. Elbow Crater in the mid-distance is several hundred metres away. Mount Hadley in the background is several kilometres distant. It took me a good couple of hours studying this photo and others taken around the same time to prove the scale mathematically - it was quite complex and a nightmare to explain to someone of a non-mathematical nature - which I tried to do in a series of PMs to someone last year. I'll not repeat it here, I don't think it will move the debate forward. What it DID do for me, was show that I could prove things about Apollo photos to my own satisfaction - without having to rely purely on other people's word. Even though it is impossible for me to tell the scale of that photo just by looking at it, by studying it properly and measuring distances between features, I proved it is on the scale claimed. I digress. Back to the good Dr Jones. At the moment I don't have the motivation to address all his claims - personally, I don't consider him anywhere near a credible source. That may change at some point, but like yourself I only have so much time to devote to my Apollo hobby. And it's taking a lot longer to type at the moment with one arm in a sling.

Duane / Jack / Craig Can we keep this thread reserved for investigating Jack's studies? There's plenty of discussion re Dr Neville Jone's claims on another thread. Cheers

Jack Thanks for taking the time to reply. I believe you are completely wrong about needing the horizon in the image as a comparison, but nonetheless here is another photo taken on the same day, which does include the horizon. No cropping, just resized for the forum, and levels changed to enhance the shadows. You state that in my original photo, some shadows (extended) go to the same vahishing point as the photographer, and some don't - you then claim this is unlikely! Well, I took these photos just a couple of days ago, you can even have copies of the high resolution (2848x2136) originals if you wish. Or, you could recreate the scene yourself if you suspect me of somehow manipulating the direction of the shadows. You may think it unlikely, but it's perfectly normal when taking a picture of an imperfect scene - the beach isn't completely flat, and the rocks casting the shadows are irregular. Just like in the Apollo photos - the surface isn't completely level, it's pocked with small craters, the rocks are irregular shapes. So, what do you make of my photo that includes the horizon? Thanks.

Sorry, I thought I'd explained it thoroughly - I'll try to be more concise. Here is Dr Neville Jones claim:- Dr Bouw states that rays of light from the Sun - which we know to be parallel - do not appear to be parallel when we see this effect called crepuscular rays caused when the sun shines through gaps in clouds. Dr Jones questions this, and gives his reasoning by stating that (if Dr Bouw was correct), then "the Sun would be just above the clouds". Since we know the sun is not "just above the clouds", it is clear that Dr Jones does not understand how things that we know to be parallel, do not appear to be parallel. Otherwise, he would have agreed with Dr Bouw's assertion, rather than labelling it an "outlandish claim". I'll restate that I am NOT trying to steer the thread away from Apollo - you posted Jones' views then claimed they were proof of fakery, and invited others to debunk his claims. I've shown why I believe he does not grasp a basic point about perspective, which obviously casts grave doubt over his ability to analyse Apollo photos - it also casts doubt over the validity of the string of letters after his name. The question is - do you agree with Dr Jones rebuttal re Dr Bouw's claims about rays of light, and if so why?

Here is another of Jack's Aulis studies. I'll restrict this post to addressing the issue he has highlighted in blue - differing shadow directions. The differing shadow directions are quite normal, and can easily be recreated here on Earth. I did this myself just a couple of days ago. It was taken using a Fuji F10, no zoom. The image has not been cropped. I've used photoshop to enhance the contrast and levels to make it easier to see the shadows. Again, I'll politely ask Jack for his comments.

1. Why would something shrink-wrapped swell and burst? Surely that would necessitate air bubbles? Why can't shrink-wrapping eliminate this? There could well be some outgassing but I don't see why this would be an issue. 2. I quite agree the photo would fade in time, but this photo was taken pretty much as soon as the family snap was put on the surface. How quickly would you expect it to noticeably fade? Seconds? Minutes? I'm guessing days or weeks. If you think you have a better guess, let's hear it. 3. A conventional oven contains air, and heats mainly by convection. No air on moon, no convection. Only heat would be conduction from the lunar surface, and infrared radiation from the sun. Would that be enough to frazzle the photo in a short space of time? I doubt it, but can't offer any evidence to support it. Can you offer any evidence to support your claim? No disinformation for you Duane, just my own opinion.

.An exact quote would be helpful did he express disbelief or surprise? I am also not sure he would know exactly what kind of film the camera would use or would be especially qualified to judge the quality of Apollo photography. If he said the cameras used “Kodak Land film” he would have demonstrated shocking ignorance of the subject. Nothing like asking Hasselblad themselves for their own opinion - here's the reply I received a few months ago. Bizarrely, an HBer from a different forum called me "creepy" for contacting them. Strange.

Nope. It's another mundane answer. The TV was deployed the correct way up on an arm attached to the LM that was deployed after landing. After he descended the ladder (TV image right way up), Conrad started to remove the camera in order to deploy it on the tripod before Bean started his descent - you can see it happen here. View from around the 1 min 35 sec mark. He didn't finish deploying the TV onto the tripod, as Bean had the Hasselblads ready to lower down on the LEC, and Conrad wanted to have his camera to take some stills. Pretty mundane huh? And right there on the ALSJ for anyone who wants to check their claims before posting them.

Me neither! I'll try to respond in kind.Al Bean took the picture. From inside the LM. Through the egress hatch. Just like it says on th ALSJ here. It was Al Bean. Strange - here is some video (the right way up) of Conrad coming down the ladder. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/a12v.1152124.rm

Questioning someone's credentials and motives is an "out of context psycho mind game"? Wow. Not a good sign of a thorough researcher. And, once again, you have avoided answering my question re Neville's opinion on perspective in photograph's - which is a point YOU raised, and asked to be debunked. Completely on topic, and utterly avoided by you, how many times now? How about actually addressing it instead of using your tried and tested "switch and bait" technique? Dr Neville Jones opinions on perspective, as posted by yourself at the start of the thread. Do you agree with them or not? If so, why?

You didn't bother reading that link I gave you about lens flare did you? No need to respond, I think I know the answer...

So what does your nasa Debunker's Manual say about this one ? .... Why isn't actor Pete upside down ? If this was a still shot taken from the TV image , he would be upside down ! ... and if it was taken with a camera , is that alien invisible or air brushed out of the visor reflection ? Really don't know where you're going with this one. Upside down? Huh? The "alien" is facing toward the camera - why would you expect that side to be reflected in Conrad's visor? That would defy some pretty basic laws of physics. I'm surprised you suggested it. You can of course see the "rear" of the "alien" (Kapton tape) in the visor - right where you'd expect to.

Jack I took these two photos today. As requested, I was standing erect, and the camera was directly above my feet. The images haven't been cropped in any way - I have reduced their size to save bandwidth - I can mail you the originals if you'd like to examine them. As you can clearly see, my shadow does not fall to the centre of the uncropped image. I invite your comments. If you agree that the images are genuine (and I'd stake my life on them as I took them only today!), are you willing to change your Aulis study to reflect this? Many thanks for your time and consideration. (Camera used was a Fuji F10, using no zoom. Orientation was portait mode).

Another good point. I suspect they were - which may account for a number of exposures I've seen which show star-like objects in the lunar sky (which I think we're all agreed aren't actually stars). Whether this is the right explanation or not I don't know. What effect on the Apollo films a cosmic particle would have - I don't know that either. I don't have any image numbers at hand but can hunt some down if required.

Hmmm... I wonder how far in front of the LM he is...

Of course I know the answer, it's in my official "NASA Debunker's Manual" that I got when i joined the programme! I'm just surprised you didn't see the picture of the gold-faced alien on the RHS of the frame - NASA were worried when that one slipped through the net!

I genuinely feel sorry for you. Which is why I moderated my own post, as I thought it a little harsh. Obviously you saw it in the 3 or 4 minutes it was online - sorry about that. As you know what I said, I'll reword it - I'm laughing at your interpretation and comments on the photographic record - not at you as a person. I'm sure you have many good qualities, aside from your "straydogg-ed determined-ness" re Apollo! And I'll always have time for someone who plays guitar and likes Neil Young . I actually do believe you when you say you think Apollo was faked. Unlike Percy and Bennett - oh, Hawkins too. They either know it happened, or don't care - but want the dollars. JW I'm not sure about at the moment - but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Keep the photos coming - but remember, just because I don't have time to address them all, doesn't mean they're "undebunkable"!

I think Duane also needsto read up on camera exposure... paying particular attention to clipping. You are interested in learning about something that might burst your fantasy, aren't you?

A joke? This thread is littered with them - your inability to interpret a photo without crying "fake"! Mind set? We know where yours is, and it has no basis in reality as far as Apollo is concerned. And the LRO missions apparently. Didn't you question the Zond photos too? And Gemini? Why not throw the Space Shuttle into the equation too! Maybe you think space flight is impossible completely! No wonder you think so much of Neville Jones. Speaking of whom, you never did bother actually entering the debate you started on that one, did you? You just claimed it was "proof" the moon landings were hoaxed. EDIT - moderated my own post.

Millions? Billions believe they did happen. Your point? So you do believe the Orbiter missions were faked? On the strength of one photo that bears good similarity to the Apollo photo? That's actually evidence in favour of the Apollo being genuine! Thanks for pointing it out! Oh, you've been thoroughly outed and debunked on every forum you've posted on. The plausible explanations for the Bean photo are too mundane for you to comprehend, so I'll leave you warm and cosy with your fly-system fantasy. Personally I think you've been reading too much Lewis Carroll... AH HA !!! .. I KNEW you couldn't debunk that one !! ... Who's Lewis Caroll ??? Duane - you've gone back to your old tactic of swamping a board with a load of photos and claiming they are fake - providing evidence to the contrary takes time and effort. Same with your cut and paste jobs - takes you 5 seconds to paste, others much longer to refute. What's the point, especially when you refuse to enter into genuine debate with any rebuttals? Can't believe you don't know who Lewis Carroll is. Look it up.

It was a finally a sunny day in Redcar today, so I took some snaps of shadows while walking on the beach - I'll post them later.

Hmmm... methinks you is confuscating crepuscularity with lens flare - nice try though!