Gavin Stone

Jack White's Original Study: http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/convexmirrorcomp.jpg

I was browsing through some random images on Flickr when I suddenly had the idea of searching for some high resolution pictures of Apollo Spacesuits, and I came across this gem. Quite blatantly, the appeared reflection of the photographer is much higher than it actually is.

As can be seen in this picture (of the same suit) the suit is slightly raised.

It also shows what happens to peoples legs when viewed from the reflection; you lose them! This photo clearly show similarities to the official NASA photo taken on the moon.

I'm wondering if White will remove his analysis now (I'm going to guess on no).

Other good examples:

Original Email:

From: Stone, Gavin

Sent: 09 January 2008 10:21

To: 'histinfo@hq.nasa.gov'

Subject: Image location

Dear Sir/Madam,

I'm wondering if you could help me in locating an image? I'm trying to find image reference S66-40127. Does this image even exist, if so where could I find it?

Any help would be appreciated.

Cheers,

Gavin Stone

Reply:

Image locationFrom: HQ-History Info [hq-histinfo@nasa.gov]

Sent: 09 January 2008 13:40

To: Stone, Gavin

Subject: RE: Image location

Dear Mr. Stone,

I am afraid that I am unable to locate the image on any of our online repositories. However, this does not mean that the image does not exist. I suggest you contact NASA's Public Affairs Office, Code PM, which runs a photo library that makes photos available to journalists and the general public. Please call this office at 202-358-1900 or fax your request on letterhead to 202-358-4333 to order glossy photos. This service is especially useful if you have a list of NASA photo numbers already. In addition, the National Air and Space Museum's reference desk at http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/arch/colle...otoarchives.cfm or by phone 202-357-3133 handles still photo requests.

For your future reference, we have a number of image repositories online:

http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/

http://nix.nasa.gov

http://www.arc.nasa.gov/aboutames-imagegallery.cfm

http://ails.arc.nasa.gov/

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/ (includes non-photo graphics)

http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/index.html (great planet images)

http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/

http://earth.jsc.nasa.gov/ (Earth images)

http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/Clickmap/default.htm (searchable Earth images)

http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/index.cfm

http://www.ssc.nasa.gov/~sirs/scripts/xmlWelcome.pl

http://www.larc.nasa.gov/larc_images/images.htm

http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/html/paogalry.htm

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/ (Human Spaceflight)

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gallery/

http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/ (earth images)

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Suckow

Contract Archivist

History Division

NASA Headquarters

EDITED TO ADD BY MODERATOR (Burton): Changed image tags to link (URL) tags in order to reduce bandwidth stress upon the site.

Evan,

The links that Duane provided encapsulated in IMG tags were on NASA's servers. The pictures being embedded into this thread would not effect the bandwidth usage of this site, Just so you know

If you want to consider this a non-issue that's fine with me , but not for the reason you presume .

Your pro Apollo pretense of a rebuttal is ancient history Gavin .... If you look at the photo of the DAC footage in question , you will see that the ground is level with no slope .

Although casting shadows against a slanted surface would indeed change the apparent length, this statement conflicts with what Neil Armstrong said during that EVA.

"Okay. The descent engine did not leave a crater of any size. It has about 1 foot clearance on the ground. We're essentially on a very level place here."

Therefore, by Armstrong's own admission, the landing sight was supposedly flat and level terrain.... A slope is the very opposite of level terrain... So if those 16mm DAC videos were indeed filmed on a slope, then that's certainly not where Armstrong said they landed.

Duane, are you being willfully obtuse? Can you not see the pan of the Apollo site clearly shows the the terrain is not level?

Are you trying to suggest that this terrain is level, Duane?

"Okay. The descent engine did not leave a crater of any size. It has about 1 foot clearance on the ground. We're essentially on a very level place here."

This quote is absolutely absurd and is a good representation of your illogical thinking. It is a throwaway comment. I'm sure that Armstrong didn't mean that "the entire Lunar Surface was perfectly flat" just that they'd landed in a relatively flat place.

No wonder you have no credibility Duane.

Too much there to debunk at once so I suggest we start with the first one

My favorite of the photo anomalies in the book is shown here as Photo 3, which René has titled “Mutt and Jeff”. The anomaly in this photo is obvious. This is a photo of Armstrong, holding the staff, and Aldrin, holding the flag. While the two astronauts are basically the same height, the shadow of Armstrong is about 75% the length of Aldrin’s. The shadows are not parallel as they should be, but converge, indicating two sources of light. René used trigonometry to discover that Aldrin’s personal source of illumination is at 26.4 degrees of altitude, while Armstrong’s is at 34.9 degrees. The sun was at 13.5 degrees altitude on the real Moon, so where were these guys? Certainly not where we have been led to believe. Perhaps a soundstage in the American desert?

I agree that the shadow is roughly 75% the length of Aldrin's. The shadows are not parallel argument is completely ignorant and has been debunked so many times it is unbelievable. "Rene used trigonometry". Is this the new trigonometry that works when surfaces aren't flat and not in any sort of geometric shape? I'll have to look that up in my maths course notes

The reason the shadows are different lengths is because the surface is not flat.

Source: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11pan1103147HR.jpg

Given that the surface quite blatantly raises and also has depressions, the shadow length is effected by these raises and depressions. I refer you to some excellent diagrams created by fellow forumer Dave Greer:

indicating two sources of light

Also, if there are two light sources, at two different angles; Why do the astronauts not have TWO shadows?

Can we now consider this particular part a non issue, Duane?

Should we now consider this "anomaly" explained, Duane?

Lol, oh Duane, you really do provide classical examples of Logic Fallacies.

Too much there to debunk at once so I suggest we start with the first one

My favorite of the photo anomalies in the book is shown here as Photo 3, which René has titled “Mutt and Jeff”. The anomaly in this photo is obvious. This is a photo of Armstrong, holding the staff, and Aldrin, holding the flag. While the two astronauts are basically the same height, the shadow of Armstrong is about 75% the length of Aldrin’s. The shadows are not parallel as they should be, but converge, indicating two sources of light. René used trigonometry to discover that Aldrin’s personal source of illumination is at 26.4 degrees of altitude, while Armstrong’s is at 34.9 degrees. The sun was at 13.5 degrees altitude on the real Moon, so where were these guys? Certainly not where we have been led to believe. Perhaps a soundstage in the American desert?

I agree that the shadow is roughly 75% the length of Aldrin's. The shadows are not parallel argument is completely ignorant and has been debunked so many times it is unbelievable. "Rene used trigonometry". Is this the new trigonometry that works when surfaces aren't flat and not in any sort of geometric shape? I'll have to look that up in my maths course notes

The reason the shadows are different lengths is because the surface is not flat.

Source: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11pan1103147HR.jpg

Given that the surface quite blatantly raises and also has depressions, the shadow length is effected by these raises and depressions. I refer you to some excellent diagrams created by fellow forumer Dave Greer:

indicating two sources of light

Also, if there are two light sources, at two different angles; Why do the astronauts not have TWO shadows?

Can we now consider this particular part a non issue, Duane?

If my putting a space before a comma for it to show up better, or posting some typos is the only technical fault you can find with my posts , then you really are making a fool out of yourself ... At least I don't put capital letters on a profession I pretend to have or a title I don't own .... Gavin says .. "I am an Astrophysicist and my field of expertise is Physics.... You couldn't be more ridiculous if you tried .

Duane, I am not an astrophysicist by profession, I am an IT Systems Analyst, by profession. Let me quote you some definitions of the word astrophysicist:

a person that studies the physics of stellar phenomena.

someone who studies how objects in the universe interact

A scientist who studies laws that describe the behavior of stars and planets.

an astronomer who studies the physical properties of celestial bodies

I apply to all of these definitions and regularly practice this behaviour at my university during courses.

I can assure you that I know what an astrophysicist is and you are not one of them .

Ah yes Duane, I should have known that you'd know better than me what I do with my life Personally, I don't care if you think I have relevant Astronomy qualifications or not. I know I have, and that's all that matters.

I have already filed a complaint against you , because you keep posting insults to me and then delete them before a moderator can read them and decide what needs to be done in your sad case .

File all the complaints you want Duane, I am filing them right back.

Sorry if my opinion about the Apollo Program upsets you all so much , but I am only one of MILLIONS of people who smells a huge rat when it comes to the authenticity of the official Apollo record .

Duane, I don't care about what you think about the Apollo record. I don't actually care about CT's much. The truth is there are not MILLIONS as claimed, only a select sad few who peddle their propoganda because of ignorance/profit. The rest have a passing interest bordering on the majority of people not caring.

I should have kept your posts on "ignore user" , but silly me ... I thought you might be able to conduct yourself like a man here instead of the obnoxious , immature brat that you are ..... You really aren't worth the bother .

Pot calling the kettle black, Duane. Reported (again)

BTW Gavin ... The next time you pretend to be someting you're not , try to remember not to put a capital letter at the beginning of it ...It's only "Physics" and "Astrophysicist" when being used at the beginning of a sentence or in the name of an organization .

Duane, it's a good job I don't get on at you for spelling and grammar as I would be here till 2028 correcting all your mistakes. Pot calling the kettle black again Duane? You expect me to take grammar advice from someone who puts a SPACE BEFORE A COMMA?

Duane, I will ignore your 'mocking' about me being an Astrophysicist because you probably don't know what one is. I find it amusing that you assume I am basing my Physics knowledge on flying a simulated mission to the moon. I am not. I am basing it on my study at degree level for Physics. Not that I expect you to understand this, seeing as though you won't even pick up a camera to do one simple test.

EDITED: There was more here, but your just not worth the calories I expend pressing keys on this keyboard.

EDIT: I'd also like to complain about Duanes last post to move; his posts are now just plain insulting.

So Gavin , why do you think the NASA employees who helped fake the Apollo photography , did such a messy , incompetent job of it ?

Do you think they were maybe just lazy , or were they perhaps WHISTLE-BLOWING for the future generations who would discover how faked those moonset piccys really are ?

I'd quite like to know:

a) What pictures were used to create this

How they were created

I don't think so Duane, many of the worlds scientists weren't around or were barely children when Apollo 11 landed on the moon. I am a scientist, and the reason I won't 'blow the whistle' is because there is no whistle to blow. I may not know much about photography (other than basic common sense which is pretty much what is needed to debunk the majority of CT photo claims) but when It comes to my area of expertise (Astrophysics) I have reviewed Apollo in extraordinary detail and have not yet found one thing which didn't make scientific sense. Why would a scientists reputation be tarnished if what he presented was actual, verifiable, peer reviewed evidence that the moon landing didn't exist? Far from it, they would be hailed a hero for uncovering such an 'elaborate hoax'.

It is not mere coincidence that the majority of CT's don't have any formal science training whatsoever. This isn't bad at all really, most people aren't scientifically trained. It's when those people start with extraordinary claims about a subject they know nothing about that those people start to become 'bad'. People are free to have their own opinion, but unless someone presents me with HARD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that the moon landing didn't exist, I will never change my mind. It will be funny to see how your conspiracy expands when the LRO pictures the Apollo sites Duane, I look forward to it!

You claim that I am character assassinating the CT's, but you know I am right. Most of you don't have any kind of science training whatsoever.

I think the question here is really why they did such a bad job of it that hundreds of thousands of professional scientists/photographers/geologists/astronomers/chemists/physicists haven't blown the whistle on the hoax yet people with no relevant qualifications and access to youtube can apparently see it!

Meh *Edited by myself*

As usual you have deleted your insult to me before a moderator could read it .... Same old sly tactics I see .

I already reported your insults , including the word you used to describe what I post here .

Why don't you grow up Gavin ? .... You would gain a lot more respect on this forum if you discussed the topics that are posted here instead of constantly insultimg me .... The moderators here are aware of my past problems with you on other forums and realize that the only reason you joined this one was to attack me .

I posted something and then edited it literally a minute afterwards. Don't flatter yourself. The fact you are on this forum is not the reason I joined; how self important do you think you are?

As for respect, practice what you preach Duane, practice what you preach.

Meh *Edited by myself*

So Duane, you agree; in the pictures/screengrabs that Dave provided, you agree that the lightsource as reflected in the visor is not a true representation of the light sources actual size?

Duane,

You are the biggest hypocrite I have ever come across in my entire life. If the site owner wasn't under as much stress as he is now, I'd PM him directly and complain. Classic Duane, attack the poster not the content.

Getting back to the thread title itself. I've dug up some more evidence appears to contradict the "huge spotlight" theory.

I've used two stills from a video clip from Apollo 17, which you can see on the ALSJ in its entirety here.

In the first still, the reflection of the lightsource is quite large. When Gene Cernan moves the handle of the rake in front of his visor, at one stage the reflection almost completely disappears. The handle is quite clearly thinner than the diameter of the reflection. How is it possible for the thin handle to almost shade the visor from the lightsource, it the size of the lightsource is comaprable to the size of the reflection? A much more likely scenario is that the angular diameter of the lightsource is a lot smaller than the reflection indicates in the first still, and that it's more comparable to the diameter of the rake handle.

This also throws a lot of doubt over Duane's theory about square and pentagonal spotlights etc, since in those images, the size of the "reflection" is a lot wider than what this GIF demonstrates the angular size of the lightsource to be. A more likely explanation is a combination of glare, and specular reflection off scratches or dust.

Intelligent comments/analyses welcome!

Dave,

May I suggest you post this excellent piece on a new thread to stop the "this is my thread and I'll post what I want to" attitude

It's very nice of you to want to return to the original topic of this thread Dave but your latest "evidence " looks rather lame to me and is being used as an excuse to divert attention away from the latest topic being disussed here .... The possible brainwashing and mind control of the Apollo astronauts .

Well bugger me, I could have sworn the title of this thread was "One Giant Spotlight for all Mankind". You've paraded on about this spotlight for years now Duane, including reflections in the astronauts visors and you chose to completely ignore Dave's excellent post.

Why don't you answer his question?

How is it possible for the thin handle to almost shade the visor from the lightsource, it the size of the lightsource is comaprable to the size of the reflection?

(presumably also you, in spite of the Luna Tic characteristics displayed smile.gif )

I see what you did there, good sir.

*scribbles down for future reference*

and just the way Gavin posted them as a present to me during one of our many rather heated discussions about Apollo

I remember these, that does look like the kind of way I would label Apollo images. I can't vouch I have them at that brightness though. I could check but unfortunately my PC is down and I'm on my laptop at present. Will be getting a new PC delivered this week then I can restore all my files and I'll check then. I don't know what this argument is about but there does seem to be two different scans/photos in existence; for example:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/i...7/134/20478.jpg

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20478.jpg

Apparently Craig not only enjoys flogging his dead horse , but enjoys riding it as well !

Duane, I'm not being funny but instead of posting absolute rubbish, how about dealing with the evidence instead? I've been reading through a lot of posts on this forum and all you conspiracy theorists seem to say is "Lamson this" and "Lamson that" and "Lamson stole my lunch box in the playground" and "Lamson is the reason that kittens die everyday" but how many times have I actually seen you try to debunk his evidence?

That's right; NONE. Why? Because you can't. You talk and complain of character assassination and to be honest it's the ultimate example of the pot calling the kettle black. This leads me to ask you a direct question.

Can you actually tell me why the findings presented by Craig here www.infocusinc.net/apollo.htm are false? Why is this not a legitimate reason for the effects observed?

Dave, that's obviously a fake picture. You claim it was taken a year ago, yet at this time a year ago it was dark. Your picture is light. Normal peoples arms hang down beyond their waist line, yet your arm seems to appear above the waist. Debunker becomes whistle blower, or freak accident with the beach CIA squad? It's obvious the sun is behind you, yet your shadow is not completely black. There was obviously a spotlight. You can do better than this Dave!

This has reared its head recently on another site and I concur with Dave Greers analysis. Gif I made for archive purposes:

Please stick to the question Duane - have you tested Jack's claim, as asked of you by Craig 6 months ago? If so, where can we find the results? If not, why not? How can you defend a claim without testing it - especially as it is well within your capability to test?

I think the problem here Evan is that you are expecting a hoax believer to do actual research!