Regarding Apollo photo file numbers

[Jack White]

Regarding the cacophonous criticism anytime I post an alleged photo taken on the moon

without providing a file number for the supposed "experts", I am compelled to point out

the following:

1. The "file number zealots" likely do not know that THE SAME PHOTO MAY HAVE

MORE THAN ONE FILE NUMBER, depending on the source.

2. There are perhaps half a dozen sources for "Apollo photos". Some are official

NASA sponsored websites. Some are independent websites.

3. I know of no NASA sponsored site which HAS EVERY PHOTO, although there

may be one.

4. The only site I know of which has EVERY known image is privately run, but

the images are very small low resolution thumbnails which do not use the official

numbers. It is merely a catalog of all images.

5. Some sites are run by Johnson Space Center, some by Jet Propulsion Lab,

some by "independent" NASA sanctioned sites. Not all use the same numbering

system. Some have LETTER PREFIXES, some use HYPHENS, some consist of

just long strings of NUMERALS.

6. Some of the sites have been known TO REMOVE CERTAIN IMAGES after they

have been the subject of studies, even though the same image may still be

available on other websites.

7. Virtually ALL IMAGES MAY BE STUDIED as photographs, regardless of file

numbers. A file number is NOT NECESSARY to study the images. They only

provide access to "documentary information" WHICH I ALLEGE IS FALSE.

To remove my studies from the forum because I allege that the file numbers

are fake is pure one-sided censorship.

8. Since all the photos are seemingly faked, it follows that all documentation

and file numbers are also false.

9. "File number afficianados" may be at a loss for explanation (only their usual

insults) when they see an upcoming Aulis study. An IDENTICAL image has been

found on two different websites WITH TWO DIFFERENT FILE NUMBERS...but with

a glaring difference: One of the images HAS CROSSHAIR RETICULES, and the

other image HAS NO CROSSHAIR RETICULES. Since the crosshairs are exposed

in the camera when the exposure is made, it is IMPOSSIBLE to have an image

WITH/WITHOUT CROSSHAIRS unless they are superimposed later! Am I going to

divulge the two different file numbers to you? NASA would love to know so

they can start their coverup campaign. Stay tuned.

Jack

Edited May 22, 2007 by Jack White

[Kevin M. West]

Regarding the cacophonous criticism anytime I post an alleged photo taken on the moon

without providing a file number for the supposed "experts", I am compelled to point out

the following:

1. The "file number zealots" likely do not know that THE SAME PHOTO MAY HAVE

MORE THAN ONE FILE NUMBER, depending on the source.

So? You only have to give us one of them to identify the image.

2. There are perhaps half a dozen sources for "Apollo photos". Some are official

NASA sponsored websites. Some are independent websites.

Relevance?

3. I know of no NASA sponsored site which HAS EVERY PHOTO, although there

may be one.

So? Just tell us where you got the image.

4. The only site I know of which has EVERY known image is privately run, but

the images are very small low resolution thumbnails which do not use the official

numbers. It is merely a catalog of all images.

Again, so what?

5. Some sites are run by Johnson Space Center, some by Jet Propulsion Lab,

some by "independent" NASA sanctioned sites. Not all use the same numbering

system. Some have LETTER PREFIXES, some use HYPHENS, some consist of

just long strings of NUMERALS.

Irrelevant.

6. Some of the sites have been known TO REMOVE CERTAIN IMAGES after they

have been the subject of studies, even though the same image may still be

available on other websites.

For example?

7. Virtually ALL IMAGES MAY BE STUDIED as photographs, regardless of file

numbers. A file number is NOT NECESSARY to study the images. They only

provide access to "documentary information" WHICH I ALLEGE IS FALSE.

To remove my studies from the forum because I allege that the file numbers

are fake is pure one-sided censorship.

A) Have you EVER done a study on an actual print of the photo, not an online scan?

The numbers are nothing but a label, how could they be fake?

8. Since all the photos are seemingly faked, it follows that all documentation

and file numbers are also false.

Circular logic at its best (or worst depending on your PoV).

9. "File number afficianados" may be at a loss for explanation (only their usual

insults) when they see an upcoming Aulis study. An IDENTICAL image has been

found on two different websites WITH TWO DIFFERENT FILE NUMBERS...but with

a glaring difference: One of the images HAS CROSSHAIR RETICULES, and the

other image HAS NO CROSSHAIR RETICULES. Since the crosshairs are exposed

in the camera when the exposure is made, it is IMPOSSIBLE to have an image

WITH/WITHOUT CROSSHAIRS unless they are superimposed later! Am I going to

divulge the two different file numbers to you? NASA would love to know so

they can start their coverup campaign. Stay tuned.

Jack

Post it and we'll see!

[Dave Greer]

Jack

How about we all agree to stick to the standard naming convention, i.e. mission-roll-frame, for example AS11-40-5903.

The file number is ALWAYS a minimum requirement, we need to be able to get high resolution copies of images, read about it in the ALSJ, look at the photos before and after that may shed light on something that seems to you to be anomalous.

Sometimes (but not always) the actual source is required, because as you know there are different "versions" of various photos (by versions I mean different sizes, cropping, contrast enhancement etc). In addition some copies of photos have had the sky "blacked out" to remove scanner noise. So if your study refers to a copy of an image that may have been (innocently or otherwise) altered in a way that you deem it to be an anomaly, then it's important that you give the actual source, so that this version can be compared to 4400x4600 pixel scans of the original positives (most of which are available online too).

I don't know of any images being removed form any site, care to expain? I know that sometimes the images on the ALSJ need to have the AS prefix in uppercase when some links don't work. I should mention that to Eric Jones next time I find an occurence.

[Steve Ulman]

nice try jack-

We all know why you don't like to give file numbers. If there is any doubt in anyone's mind - check out jack's " A very peculiar Apollo series, ...Bernice, please post image here". Your attempt to hide the truth about the 4 photos in question, and the reason for that attempt at deception is obvious.

If you did half the research you claim to do you'd know the naming convention most commonly in use is mission # - roll # - frame# - just as Dave posted.

The remainder of your post is just smoke and mirrors trying to keep you from being answerable for your lack of civility and common decency for other researchers. Especially those who don't know much about the subject and truly want to know the truth, like the students that visit this site.

I'll risk speaking for all - We don't care which convention you use. Technically, you should use the naming convention used by your source, and then also tell us what your source is.

It’s not only for our convenience, it is what any serious researcher knows to do automatically.

Maybe I just found the answer – “serious...”

[Len Colby]

1. The "file number zealots" likely do not know that THE SAME PHOTO MAY HAVE MORE THAN ONE FILE NUMBER, depending on the source.

5. Some sites are run by Johnson Space Center, some by Jet Propulsion Lab, some by "independent" NASA sanctioned sites. Not all use the same Numbering system. Some have LETTER PREFIXES, some use HYPHENS, some consist of just long strings of NUMERALS.

I freely admit I know far less about this issue than most of the participants on these threads but whenever I’ve checked numbering has been fairly consistent as has already been pointed out. I think if an image is IDed as AS11-40-5967 or 11-40-5967 or AS11405967 people here are smart enough to figure it out

2. There are perhaps half a dozen sources for "Apollo photos". Some are official NASA sponsored websites. Some are independent websites.

3. I know of no NASA sponsored site which HAS EVERY PHOTO, although there may be one.

4. The only site I know of which has EVERY known image is privately run, but the images are very small low resolution thumbnails which do not use the offical numbers. It is merely a cataloge of all images.

None of this is relevant (as has already been pointed out)

6. Some of the sites have been known TO REMOVE CERTAIN IMAGES after they have been the subject of studies, even though the same image may still be available on other websites.

Yes, this coming from the guy who falsely claimed a thread was locked. Please cite any example and offer evidence to back your claim. What would be the point of removing the images if they still are online elsewhere? Even if true it does free you from your obligation to back your claims

7. Virtually ALL IMAGES MAY BE STUDIED as photographs, regardless of file numbers. A file number is NOT NECESSARY to study the images.

Most importantly image numbers allow people to easily find, uncropped, unaltered high-resolution copies of the images. Doing so normally explains the alleged "anomaly". They also provide context which also often explains the so called ‘mistake’

They only provide access to "documentary information" WHICH I ALLEGE IS FALSE.

Exactly which you ALLEGE is false, just because you think so doesn’t preclude those who disagree with you from citing it. Your thinking is a bit circular 1) “the image was faked” 2) therefore the "documentary information" is fake as well 3) therefore any reply to my “study” that uses that information is invalid 4) therefore I haven’t been shown to be wrong 5) therefore I am right that the image was faked 6) therefore the "documentary information" is fake as well.

To remove my studies from the forum because I allege that the file Numbers are fake is pure one-sided censorship.

AFAIK none of your “studies” has ever been removed or even locked. Evan told he would lock the thread if you didn’t provide the file numbers not because you claimed they were fake, IIRC you never made such a claim. He was asking you to comply with the long established rules of the JFK Forum that recently were extended to this one. Asking a member to comply with neutral forums and taking action if he (or she) doesn’t comply isn’t censorship.

8. Since all the photos are seemingly faked, it follows that all documentation and file numbers are also false.

Circular as pointed out above and previously by Kevin. Also if I’m not mistaken you and your “fellow travelers” have only carried out studies of a fraction of all Apollo images there fore at best you could claim “Since most of the photos are seemingly faked, it follows that most of the documentation and file numbers are also false”. In anycase whether the numbers and info are faked or not people wishing to reply to you have the right to have access to the information and high rez, unaltered uncropped images

9. "File number afficianados" may be at a loss for explanation (only their usual insults)

Other than Craig your critics rarely insult you, you however quite commonly insult your critics

when they see an upcoming Aulis study. An IDENTICAL image has been found on two different websites WITH TWO DIFFERENT FILE NUMBERS...but with a glaring difference: One of the images HAS CROSSHAIR RETICULES, and the other image HAS NO CROSSHAIR RETICULES. Since the crosshairs are exposed in the camera when the exposure is made, it is IMPOSSIBLE to have an image WITH/WITHOUT CROSSHAIRS unless they are superimposed later! Am I going to divulge the two different file numbers to you? NASA would love to know so they can start their coverup campaign. Stay tuned.

We’ll believe it when we see it are both images high-resolution? Is it possible the reticules are visible due too image quality problems? Are both sites official? Is it possible the numbering difference is due to a simple error by one site? Is it possible one site PhotoShopped the reticules out for aesthetic reasons? In any case irrelevant to your obligation to follow forum rules and basic courteously.

[Evan Burton]

Regarding the cacophonous criticism anytime I post an alleged photo taken on the moon

without providing a file number for the supposed "experts", I am compelled to point out

the following:

1. The "file number zealots" likely do not know that THE SAME PHOTO MAY HAVE

MORE THAN ONE FILE NUMBER, depending on the source.

This is quite correct. Determining th source of the image, however, allows us to determine if it is an original image or not. Even within NASA, different centres have different image labels - but they can still be traced back to the original source.

2. There are perhaps half a dozen sources for "Apollo photos". Some are official NASA sponsored websites. Some are independent websites.

Correct, but most will give an image number. This ID will allow tracing back to an original source.

3. I know of no NASA sponsored site which HAS EVERY PHOTO, although there may be one.

There are a few, but a well known one is the Lunar & Planetary Institute.

4. The only site I know of which has EVERY known image is privately run, but the images are very small low resolution thumbnails which do not use the official numbers. It is merely a catalog of all images.

Which site is this? I can point you towards a number of sites which contain all images, with most both in high and low resolution.

5. Some sites are run by Johnson Space Center, some by Jet Propulsion Lab, some by "independent" NASA sanctioned sites. Not all use the same numbering system. Some have LETTER PREFIXES, some use HYPHENS, some consist of just long strings of NUMERALS.

Correct, but once again, that image number will allow us to trace the image back to the source.

6. Some of the sites have been known TO REMOVE CERTAIN IMAGES after they have been the subject of studies, even though the same image may still be available on other websites.

I'd be interested to see examples of this, most particularly the NASA sites. They go down for maintenance, but I have never seen an image 'disappear' - it has only ever been replaced by a higher resolution image.

7. Virtually ALL IMAGES MAY BE STUDIED as photographs, regardless of file numbers. A file number is NOT NECESSARY to study the images. They only provide access to "documentary information" WHICH I ALLEGE IS FALSE. To remove my studies from the forum because I allege that the file numbers are fake is pure one-sided censorship.

A file number is necessary to determine which mission and when an image was taken, especially if context is important. Showing an altered crop of an image gives a false impression of the context of the image, unless the alteration is stated when presenting the image.

8. Since all the photos are seemingly faked, it follows that all documentation and file numbers are also false.

Circular logic. By your reasoning, if one image is true then the documentation must be true. The file numbers have nothing to do with the authenticity of the image; it is merely a way of determining which image is being referred to.

9. "File number afficianados" may be at a loss for explanation (only their usual insults) when they see an upcoming Aulis study. An IDENTICAL image has been found on two different websites WITH TWO DIFFERENT FILE NUMBERS...but with a glaring difference: One of the images HAS CROSSHAIR RETICULES, and the other image HAS NO CROSSHAIR RETICULES. Since the crosshairs are exposed in the camera when the exposure is made, it is IMPOSSIBLE to have an image WITH/WITHOUT CROSSHAIRS unless they are superimposed later! Am I going to divulge the two different file numbers to you? NASA would love to know so they can start their coverup campaign. Stay tuned.

I look forward to your post. You do remember, however, you yourself have claimed that two images have been identical yet have been shown to be slightly different? This is where image numbers become important - especially if we are talking about images taken from the Hasselblads and images taken with the Gold Camera (no fidicals, IIRC). Don't forget, as you yourself has pointed out, that the same image can have two (or more) ID numbers, depending upon where it came from. Images from the Great Images from NASA server (GRIN) are different from the originals, but they still can be traced back to the original ID number.

I can probably beat you to the punch with images, if you like. Would you like me to give the images before you do? They may not be the same images as you have, but they will have the same characteristics you describe (apparently the same but with different ID numbers).