Dave Greer

Very quickly... Duane, I accepted Craig's explanation of hand-writing as better than my sprocket hole theory because the shape of the marks in question is quite organic, not unlike how handwriting would appear. Sprocket holes are very geometric. Do you have the software capable of measuring dimensions on photographs? If so, measure the physical size of the frame... you'll see that whatever the marks are, they are not on the exposed part of the film... hence it's impossible that they are stagelights (or anything else other than some kind of mark on the fiml itself - it's not an exposed image of anything).

It is unfortunate that he can't either defend his claims, or withdraw them. Duane had the moral courage to withdraw his claim about the stage-lights in visors when given conclusive evidence that they were scratches. Jack would have earned some respect if he had done the same - not just recently on this board, but on various forums over the years. Of course, he would eventually be left with little or no evidence to support his claims, so as you say it's a lot easier for him to do "bombing runs" then leave, refusing to sensibly discuss his claims. If you're reading this Jack, this is not an ad hom - there is a thread on apollohoax.net where I actually support part of your analysis, just not the conclusion you are leading people to. The 3 page thread starts here.

Craig Thanks for that, a much more satisfactory answer than either stagelights or sprocket marks (duh!) Cheers

Now onto the next photo which I don't believe has been discussed yet .... From looking at the photo study that Jack has posted here , it does look as though there are a bank of stage lights at the very top center of this photo which are creating the appearance of "lens flare" ... I'm not sure where nasa was going with this one ... If indeed these turn out to be a bank of stage lights , what would have been their purpose in this particular photo ? .... The only light source on the moon would have been the sun , yet this light looks nothing like sunlight .... Perhaps after making a mistake with this one and letting it slip by quality control , nasa had to come up with the explanation of lens flare ? Without seeing the high resolution photo it is difficult to tell exactly what we are seeing here , but it does does appear to be a bank of stage lights causing this "lens flare" effect in this photo . I have just searched for this number AS15-89-12015 , on the Apollo Image Gallery but had no luck in finding it so far .... Maybe Dave can locate this one , as he is very good at finding elusive Apollo photos and I am not , as he knows from past experience . ( Alien bootprint !! ) If Dave or anyone else can either find the high res photo of this or let me know where I can find it , I would appreciate it very much . If you're still up for discussing this one Duane First off, I haven't been able to find a very high resolution online version of this picture, and I'm not sufficiently motivated to pay for a print! But we can work with what we've got. This is the first exposure on the film - and as can be seen on many first and last exposures (as well as some others), these frames sometimes suffer from light leaking into the cartridge and partially spoiling the film (I believe the term used is sunstrike). This sun-strike can manifest itself in various ways - here are some other examples. AS15-86-11530 AS12-49-7324 I hope that's a satisfactory explanation for the "glare" in the frame. As for the alleged "stage-lights" - well, we can be fairly sure they aren't stage-lights, since they aren't on the portion of the film that is exposed when a picture is taken. This can be verified by measuring the distance from the visble grid-lines on the reseau plate to the bottom edge of the frame, then working out where the top edge actually is (it's impossible to judge by eye, since the blackness of space isn't distinguishable from the unexposed portion of the film. Using the measure tool in photoshop is is fairly easy to do this, although I agree it would be more clear if we had higher resolution scans available. So, if the artefacts we see are not in the portion of film that is exposed, they can't be stage-lights... so what are they? I believe an explanation can be found in this photo... AS15-82-11214 It seems as if it may just be the sprocket holes on the edge of the film, used for winding it along. I realise the marks look different so am not 100% happy with this explanation, but they are definitely not part of the actual exposure, so whatever they are, there must be some benign explanation. Anyone have an explanation that better fits the available data?

Duane I for one would be very interested in hearing some original claims, Cosmic Dave's 33 questions are pretty tiresome, and JW doesn't seem interested in defending his work.

Fair play to you Duane, I hope Jack is as forthcoming! Incidentally, have you managed to check out the link I posted re the configuration of the helmet visors? Once you understand this, the "Schmitt helmet" photo is quite easy to comprehend. Cheers

For those of you who are unfamiliar, Jack White has posted several studies over at www.aulis.com, purporting to cast doubt over the veracity o the Apollo photographic record. Here is one such study (I'm sure Jack won't mind me posting it). http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/shadowstudy.jpg Jack is saying that photographs such as this one shown below, are impossible as the shadow must fall to the bottom centre. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/as11-40-5961.jpg Jack, you have stated previously that where you are shown to be wrong in any of your studies you will gladly withdraw your claim. Here is a selection of photos I Googled in a few seconds which show your claim to be wrong. It is also very simple and easy to disprove your claim by going outside with a digital camera on a sunny day, and taking some photographs. My question to you Jack, is will you withdraw your claim and get Aulis to remove this study from their website? Thanks

Wish I could claim it for my own, but it's all Pericynthion's off UM.

Pericynthion posted the following on the Unexplained Mysteries website which should clear this up once and for all. He doesn't have posting rights here, so has asked me to post it for him. His original post can be found here - http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...0669&st=161 All the words beloe are his own, not mine. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This is a crop of the image in question, AS17-134-20380. There has been much discussion as to whether the bright streaks and spots on the Gene's visor are scratches or some sort of stage lighting. I side with the group that contends they are just scratches. It occurred to me a few days ago that we have more potential evidence to examine than just the Apollo 17 lunar surface photos. Gene Cernan's suit and LEVA (visor) assembly were returned to Earth and are currently on public display at the National Air and Space Museum (link). If the features in the above image are indeed scratches on the visor, they should still exist and may be visible on the displayed suit. After a bit of digging on the web, I found this image of Gene's suit at the museum: The above photo is taken from flickr.com and credited to photographer dalesmidt. It is listed as a public photo, so I consider my reprint of a portion of the photo here to be fair use under flickr's Creative Commons policy. The full photo can be found here). I've circled a set of three scratches on the visor which appear to be a perfect match in size, location, and orientation to the features seen in AS17-134-20380. While it is certainly possible that additional scratches have appeared on the visor during its years of storage and display, it would seem extremely unlikely that they would match so closely to the pattern seen in the original photo. I believe this is pretty strong evidence that the features seen in the Apollo photo are truly just scratches on the visor. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Nuff said?

Apologies - there is already a thread on this. I've moved the post onto it. You can access the thread here:- http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...opid=80719& Cheers

I certainly am not making anything up, the field of view IS slightly different between the two photos whether you choose to believe it or not. I think you're paying too much attention to the cropped versions supplied by Jack. The B&W image is this one AS15-92-12447HR.jpg The colour image is this one as15-88-11866HR.jpg It's plainly obvious that these two are framed differently. The colour photo is also taken slightly closer to the LM than in the B&W photo. The lowest 2 tracks wouldn't be visible in the colour photo, only the ones above it, closer to the flag. If you really can't see more bootprints and scuffed up dirt in the colour photo than in the black and white photo, then I can't really help you with this one and we'll just have to agree to disagree and move on. (Incidentally, I can see part of what looks the rover track in the colour photo. Look at the astronauts left had boot (from our view point). Then go to the edge of the photo - you can see there a small part of the track not obscured by dust or bootprints. It matches up to where it shows more clearly on the B&W photo.) How do bootprints and scuffed up dirt partially obscuring craters prove that they are dug up holes rather than craters??? I will when I get the time.

Duane...is this good enough to settle the black patch anomaly? It is an extreme closeup of the area. NO BLACK PATCH, NO NAILS, NO "THERMAL BLANKET". Jack Could it be out of frame to the right perhaps? More shots from roll 140 (EVA 3) showing the black patch. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/as17-140-21370HR.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-140-21371HR.jpg I think your misunderstanding is coming from the different angles the piece of material is viewed from. It is not "stuck down flat" on top of the US decal - look at the high resolution version of the original images in this discussion. The material is protruding out from the body of the LM. From one angle, it partially covers the US decal. From another angle, it is edge-on - being back and in shadow it is obvioudly very hard to see.

The text in the images you posted was misleading - they both say they are not cropped at the top, hence I didn't have a clue what message you were trying to get across. Yes the images are cropped slightly differently at the top edge. Presumably done at different times by different people? If you look at the hi-res scans from the film rolls, you can easily see why the images were cropped in the first place.

How do you know there are not enough boot prints? The dust kicked up not only covers the rover tracks, it also covers some of the other boot prints. Did you actually look at the quality of the pristine surface in the first photo (near the foreground tracks, but not disturbed), and compare it to the second surface? It is completely different. This shows how much dust has been kicked up. Given this quote, I doubt you have actually looked at both hi-res images and properly followed what I have said, maybe that was down to deficiencies in how I explained it, but it does look quite clear to me when you take time to look at both photos, that there is far more disturbed dust in the second photo. There are many other images in the Apollo record which show tracks being obscured by bootprints and the dust kicked up by astronauts, and you only have to examine the TV footage to see how much is kicked up with a single step. (One thing I did forget to mention in my previous post, the field of view between the two pictures is slightly different - the second photo is framed in such a way that you couldn't see all of the tracks anyway) Well, I don't believe I'm wrong about this. If you can prove to me that the tyre tracks can not have been covered over by astronaut bootprints, please do so. I've shown that the photos were taken during different EVAs, that the astronauts were working in that area between the EVAs, video footage of the actual scene showing plenty of evidence of astronaut activity, including dust being sprayed around with virtually every step. I also shows in the Apollo 11 time lapse foootage how much the landscape can change in just 70 minutes. All this is evidence - all you have shown are your beliefs. You are of course entitled to them. But your beliefs are not evidence of anything, so why should I admit to being wrong? You have not presented any evidence to back up the claim that this area was "raked" between the photos! Just speculation and your beliefs. I have shown plenty of evidence, both photographic and video. What is a crater if it isn't a shallow hole??? Strange that you are admitting here that the astronaut activity has obscured or erased the craters, yet you laughingly dismiss any notion that quite shallow tyre tracks could be similarly obscured.

Jack I really don't know where you're going with this one, I can't make head nor tail of the text you've put in the image. Here is the highest resolution version of this image I can find - ftp://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ISD_highres_AS17_AS17-134-20482.JPG You can see that this is not a scan from a print, it's from the film roll itself. What you are trying to say with the "red-box crop"? Not knowing the provenance of the image you are claiming has been changed , it's difficult to comment, except to say that it's an ongoing project for NASA providing better quality scans of images. What the small dots you claim to be "nail heads" (!) could well be something as mundane as specks of dirt on a print the image was canned from. Like I say, impossible to be sure without seeing the image itself. What we do know is, it ain't on the scan of the film roll... so it's highly likely it was introduced accidentally when the image was reproduced.

Not at all. Of course the photos were taken at different times - even under your "raking over the moon dust" theory, they must have been taken at different times. Look at the highest resolution versions available. Firstly the black and white one. Look at the area in between the flag and the astronaut taking the photo. In between the rover tracks, there is what appears to be pristine lunar surface. Now look at the colour one, taken a day later. In this same area, we see planty of footprints, and plenty of scuffed up clumps of dirt - the surface is no longer pristine. Where you CAN still see rover tracks is behind the astronaut and the flag - in the same position from one photo to the next. So you don't believe that the astronauts kicked up much dust while moving about? Take a look at this time-lapse movie taken in Apollo 11. See how the nature of the surface changes in just 70 minutes of activity on the surface. I've GIFed two frames form the start and end of the clip to show the point I'm making. Wrong, as shown above. There are visible tracks behind the flag, and the tracks in the foreground have clearly been covered up by astronaut activity. Incidentally, you can even see video footage of an astronaut kicking up dust in this very location, here (from approx 2:50 onwards) and here. Every step produces a noticeable sparay of dirt. The LRV is facing toward us in both photos, so you'd expect there to be tracks behind the LRV, which you couldn't see in these photos anyway. And again, there is still the possibilty of tracks being obscured by footprints and scuffed up dirt, especially as the astronauts spent a lot of time moving around the LRV removing samples etc. Experts? Sources? Not David Percy? A completely circular argument I'm afraid. Not if you look closely at them, and have an understanding of the amount of disturbance to the surface just walking about on it produced.

Duane I'm glad you can see the reflections of the massif in the high resolution image - which goes to show once again, that when making claims of anomalies in Apollo photos, you really do need to look at the best quality images you can get your hands on. For the highest resolution on-line scans, I use www.gavsto.com/apollo which has a more user-friendly interface than the NASA website it links to. It also highlights the need to look at photos in context - in this case, I quickly found nine similar photos taken consecutively, with varying exposures. The minor changes in the astronauts relative positions produced small but noticeable changes in the reflection - more evidence that it is indeed a reflection (if any were needed, as you can see part of the LRV very clearly in at least one of the images). This is an example of why so many people dismiss Jack's claims - firstly he claims that there are no other photos that show this (I found nine very quickly, with consecutive numbers both before and after the one in question) - I then gave Jack the links to high resolution images, yet he still refuses to believe that what he is seeing is indeed a reflection. He would have more credibility if he admitted his error, and then claimed it was a reflection of a mountain backdrop. OK, he still wouldn't have proof of a mountain backdrop, but it is beyond belief that he cannot see the reflection in the high resolution images. The one with the LRV is astonishingly clear - I'll post a crop of the high resolution portion of the image here for clarity's sake. It's clear that this is a reflection of the massif (and LRV in 20480) - and there are even HIGHER resolution images available, e.g. ftp://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ISD_highres_AS17_AS17-134-20480.JPG Discuss it later we can - there are very good answers to questions you pose. Looking at the high resolution versions of these images, I've cropped the section under discussion, improved the colour levels and contrast to try and bring the detail out in this quite dark area. There's a link to it here - http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.greer70...mal_blanket.jpg I can't see anything untoward with this piece of material... you can now see an obvious bend in it... the RHS appears to where it's attached to the LM... it's at a different angle to the insulation behind it, so the fact it's a different shade is no surprise as it is catching the light differently... I really can not see a problem with it, just seems like a wild goose chase. As to it not appearing in some photos - I don't think Jack has provided any image numbers yet so can't comment.

Jack, if you're accusing Craig of what I think you are, you really are making yourself look silly. Anyway, I'm sure Craig is more than capable of defending himself against such ridiculous insinuations.

I know nothing of what you're talking about - however if it is really so profound and earth-shattering, can you not re-mortgage your home to raise what is in the great scheme of things quite a small amount? Just a suggestion. Good luck.

OK, I'll bite. There is indeed an explanation - and a very simple one that took me 20 minutes to get to the bottom of - why it took you years I find somewhat curious. As I stated, they are from Apollo 15, not Apollo 16. They can both be found in www.apolloarchive.com The B&W image is this one AS15-92-12447HR.jpg The colour image is this one as15-88-11866HR.jpg Jack, the B&W picture was during EVA 2. The colour picture was taken during EVA 3. The tyre marks from EVA 2 have been obscured by footprints and dust kicked up by the astronauts. I think it only fair that you properly answer some rebuttals before expecting any further answers. Dave- I wish you would have posted this before I reviewed all 2800 Apollo 16 thumbnails at the Apollo Image Atlas! I think you should be calling Jack, not me!

Jack- This is one situation that it is critical that we find out what the photo Id's are. If they were indeed taked arouind the same time, there might be anomolies present. If they were taken at different times, then no problems. This one might take a while to resolve. Stay Tuned. Jack, I'll help you out here. It's Apollo 15, not Apollo 16. Find me the numbers and I'll give you the very simple explanation for these two.

It's not attempting to dodge the real issue. Your original post only mentioned two anomalies - the fact that this black patch only shows up in ONE photo and NO others - I've shown you to be wrong (it shows up in at least nine). Which photos should it be in that it isn't? Well, you never mentioned this AT ALL in your first post on this subject. Jack - it is neither "black paper" nor is it "nailed" to the LM. Well, this is the Education Forum. If you're really interested, here is a PDF which should explain everything you want to know about insulation blankets on the LM. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntr..._1972018272.pdf - try page 15 onwards. I'll not get bogged in in semantics, I stated it had religious conotations i.e. the connection with "apologist". Forget it, it's not that important. Indeed. Well, for someone who can see nails attaching a square of black paper to the LM, why you can't see the massif (and the LRV) in these closeups of as17-134-20480 and as17-134-20482 is beyond me. Heck, you can even see the shadow of the LM.

You've yet to show any serious flaws in the Apollo record. Hasselblad photos are on continuous strips. Changes would have been made to a scan of the photo in question in the darkroom. The majority of the photos on the ALSJ have had some kind of processing done by Kipp Teague, in order to provide a better colour balance and to improve contrast and bring out detail. This does not mean they were faked. The photo in question has mistakenly been added to the apolloarchive.com site - a simple clerical error. Firstly, I'm no "Apollogist", and find the term mildly insulting with it's religious connotations. That aside, I'll happily look at the photo you posted. Here is a link to what you describe as one of your favourites. That would suggest you have studied it in great detail. AS17-134-20482 Well, I've looked at it for about 30 seconds and have already discovered a huge error you have made. You state that "NO OTHER PHOTOS OF THE FLAG DECAL SHOW THIS BLACK PATCH". You haven't looked very far, because it is quite clearly visible in the following NINE consecutive images:- AS17-134-20480 AS17-134-20481 AS17-134-20482 AS17-134-20483 AS17-134-20484 AS17-134-20485 AS17-134-20486 AS17-134-20487 AS17-134-20488 Now, as to the other "anomaly". Quite clearly it is the reflection of the massif in the background, on the side of the astronauts helmet. You can see it more clearly in AS17-134-20480 - as well as part of the rover and what appears to be the flag. So, do you wish to retract the claim about the black patch being in only one photo? And do you accept that it is indeed a reflection of the massif in the side of the astronauts helmet?

I'm a 38 year old IT Engineer from Redcar, England. I work for a large multi-national outsourcing company providing second and third line support. I recently bought a house in the street I grew up in, apart form a ten year spell in Abu Dhabi from 1975 - 1986. For the last few years I've been interested in the Apollo moon landings, in particular with respect to why a number of people are convinced that man never landed on the moon. I enjoy sensible debate on this issue, in particular with respect to alleged photographic discrepancies in the photographic record. Also, my website is http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.greer70/Macca/title.htm