Jump to content
The Education Forum

A very peculiar Apollo series


Recommended Posts

Today I came across this odd Apollo series of four photos.

They are four consecutive photos of a stick stuck in the ground.

They are nearly identical. Someone please tell me what was so

important about this stick that four shots were used on it.

No, for purposes of answering this, you do NOT need the file

numbers. If you are such experts, you already know them,

or can find them easily. I will not do your research for you.

Thanks, Bernice, for posting the image.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Jack, do you know why you are unable to upload images yourself? I recall you mentioning it was a problem with the forum software and your Mac. Is that correct? We can try to see if there is something we can do about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today I came across this odd Apollo series of four photos.

They are four consecutive photos of a stick stuck in the ground.

They are nearly identical. Someone please tell me what was so

important about this stick that four shots were used on it.

No, for purposes of answering this, you do NOT need the file

numbers. If you are such experts, you already know them,

or can find them easily. I will not do your research for you.

Thanks, Bernice, for posting the image.

Jack

There are many such shots where multiple images of seeminly 'uninteresting' features have been taken. It might be a core sample tube. It might be an early gnomon of some type. I really don't care, Jack, because you are being frivolous.

Unless you can tell us which frames they are (or at least which mission), as far as I am concerned they might be non-genuine and not worthy of wasting time.

We are not playing your games, Jack. You can provide an image ID of at least one image to show it is a genuine image, or I'll lock the thread. I'll check back tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack, do you know why you are unable to upload images yourself? I recall you mentioning it was a problem with the forum software and your Mac. Is that correct? We can try to see if there is something we can do about it.

The forum software does not allow posting of any photos from a Macintosh

lower than System Ten (OSX). Something technical, I suppose. This ten-year

old computer is System 9.2 and is not recognized by system software.

My computer in my office has OSX, but is inconvenient for me to use for

this purpose. This computer is in my den.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today I came across this odd Apollo series of four photos.

They are four consecutive photos of a stick stuck in the ground.

They are nearly identical. Someone please tell me what was so

important about this stick that four shots were used on it.

No, for purposes of answering this, you do NOT need the file

numbers. If you are such experts, you already know them,

or can find them easily. I will not do your research for you.

Thanks, Bernice, for posting the image.

Jack

There are many such shots where multiple images of seeminly 'uninteresting' features have been taken. It might be a core sample tube. It might be an early gnomon of some type. I really don't care, Jack, because you are being frivolous.

Unless you can tell us which frames they are (or at least which mission), as far as I am concerned they might be non-genuine and not worthy of wasting time.

We are not playing your games, Jack. You can provide an image ID of at least one image to show it is a genuine image, or I'll lock the thread. I'll check back tomorrow.

Mr. Burton...I AM NOT BEING FRIVOLOUS!

I AM NOT PLAYING GAMES! I ASKED A VERY SERIOUS QUESTION. I ASKED

FOR COMMENTS ON WHY FOUR IMAGES ARE SO SIMILAR AND SO MEANINGLESS,

AND I GET A RIDICULOUS REPLY!

I RESENT YOUR THREATS AND ASPERSIONS REGARDING MY HONESTY. YOUR

INSINUATION THAT I FAKED THE IMAGES IS DESPICABLE!

You are letting you bias cloud your judgment.

I shall report your threat to Mr. Simkin.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack, do you know why you are unable to upload images yourself? I recall you mentioning it was a problem with the forum software and your Mac. Is that correct? We can try to see if there is something we can do about it.

The forum software does not allow posting of any photos from a Macintosh

lower than System Ten (OSX). Something technical, I suppose. This ten-year

old computer is System 9.2 and is not recognized by system software.

My computer in my office has OSX, but is inconvenient for me to use for

this purpose. This computer is in my den.

Jack

As has been explained to you several times you can post images to anyone of several free photo hosting sites and then post the urls here flanked by image tags. The tags can normally be generated by the host site by click a button. If not they can be generated by clicking a button on this forum's message editor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The four shots are part of a clearing series, advancing the film by about 6 frames to avoid them getting sunstruck. The pole turns out to be where the Solar Wind Collector was hanging prior to being removed and then taken back to Earth.

The images are from Apollo 11, AS11-40-5967 to AS11-40-5970. The other two clearing shots were prior to those four, AS11-40-5965 & AS11-40-5966.

Here are the uncropped shots, in numerical order (5967 to 5970):

AS11-40-5967.jpg

AS11-40-5968.jpg

AS11-40-5969.jpg

AS11-40-5970.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I call shenanigans.

Why did you crop and rotate two of the images, Jack, and were then so reluctant to give the image numbers? Why did you crop out the arm in the other two images?

Was it because you wanted to give people the impression they were deliberately framed shots, rather than clearing shots? Hoping no-one would check up on your work?

That's why I continue to waste my time on stuff like this - to ensure that such disinformation does not go unaddressed.

Edited by Evan Burton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I call shenanigans.

Why did you crop and rotate two of the images, Jack, and were then so reluctant to give the image numbers? Why did you crop out the arm in the other two images?

Was it because you wanted to give people the impression they were deliberately framed shots, rather than clearing shots? Hoping no-one would check up on your work?

That's why I continue to waste my time on stuff like this - to ensure that such disinformation does not go unaddressed.

These four shots are even explained as such in the ALSJ. This is the sort of "study" that I can't believe even Jack believes to be an indicator of a faked Apollo 11 mission.

Journal Contributor Andrew Vignaux suggests that, before removing the magazine, Neil advances the film, undoubtedly to prevent the last EVA images from getting sunstruck. Without aiming the camera, Neil gets two incidental frames showing views to the southeast, AS11-40-5965 and 5966. Vignaux suggests that these may have been accidental exposures. The next four frames, AS11-40-5967, 5968, 5969, and 5970, give views to the northwest and almost certainly represent purposeful film advances. The final frame is, indeed, sunstruck.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I call shenanigans.

Why did you crop and rotate two of the images, Jack, and were then so reluctant to give the image numbers? Why did you crop out the arm in the other two images?

Was it because you wanted to give people the impression they were deliberately framed shots, rather than clearing shots? Hoping no-one would check up on your work?

That's why I continue to waste my time on stuff like this - to ensure that such disinformation does not go unaddressed.

Jack wrote:

"I RESENT YOUR THREATS AND ASPERSIONS REGARDING MY HONESTY. YOUR

INSINUATION THAT I FAKED THE IMAGES IS DESPICABLE!"

And yet, thats exactly what Jack did......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Jack, or Bernice, or whoever did your work for you did you... Why did you blur out the fiducials that would have shown that the images were rotated?

I guess we know why you refuse to give image numbers, seeing the originals makes it clear that you're lying about them being nearly identical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Jack, or Bernice, or whoever did your work for you did you... Why did you blur out the fiducials that would have shown that the images were rotated?

I guess we know why you refuse to give image numbers, seeing the originals makes it clear that you're lying about them being nearly identical.

I don't think the fiducials have been blurred out Kevin, they're just difficult to see due to the low resolution of the image. I've highlighted them below.

apollo11stick.gif

However, I do agree that Jack must have know that the original images would be found, so why say they were nearly identical? In fact, why mention them at all since they're clearly photos that have been taken to use up the film to prevent sunstrike on the important frames?

This has all the hallmarks of trying to create a mystery or an anomaly where clearly there isn't one. Maybe that's just the way Jack's brain works. Mine works the opposite way. Vive la difference and all that, but this kind of study is the sort that makes it far too easy to pour scorn on the whole pro-hoax movement.

If you honestly see this as evidence against Apollo, I'm sorry Jack but you're leaving yourself wide open to ridicule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're probably right Dave, it's probably just an artifact of using a crappy low-rez copy then rotating it and lowering the quality more while using crappy software. My own results after rotating, scaling, and saving as jpg resulted in a more visible fiducial. But this is Jack we're talking about, who doesn't think the details are important in photographic analysis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...