Jump to content
The Education Forum

New lighting study, Apollo 12


Jack White
 Share

Recommended Posts

Let's break this one down into bite sized chunks to make it easier to understand what Jack is getting at. I've summarised Jack's main points in bold, followed by my response.

For reference, here's a link to a high resolution version of this image.

1. Sun is behind photographer's left shoulder.

While the sun is certainly to the left, it is impossible for it to be behind the photographer's left shoulder, otherwise the front of the astronaut would still be in full sunlight. Look carefully at the high resolution image - the extreme edge of the astronaut's right arm is in sunlight.

Here is a detail of the astronaut's camera. I've highlighted 2 shadows in particular which make it more easy to identify the direction of the sunlight, since they are geometric surfaces and well-defined shadows. The sunlight appears to be coming from somewhere like 10-11 o'clock (using 12 o'clock as straight ahead). Not the most accurate I know, but it's very clear the lightsource can NOT be behind the photographer's left shoulder as Jack claims (that would place it at about 7 o'clock).

as12-49-7278-camera-shadow.jpg

2. Lens flare can only be caused by direct bright falling on the objective lens of the camera, so the round flare and 2 diagonal flares cannot be caused by the sun which is out of camera view.

Jack is basically right with his initial point, but as he has incorrectly located the position of the lightsource (see point 1), then his conclusion is rendered invalid. Clearly, if the lightsource is at 10-11 o'clock, then light rays will be able to hit the objective lens, so will be able to produce a lens flare effect.

3. Jack questions whether the Hasselblad had a five bladed iris.

There's a discussion about the problems of pentagonal apertures in Zeiss lenses on Hasselblad cameras here. If Jack thinks this is a major isuue, perhaps he could contact Zeiss who manufacture the lenses and ask them?

4. The light patches at the top are light shining on a background.

An alternative hypothesis is that it is diffuse light caused by dust on the camera lens itself. Evidence to support this theory would be if we could find a similar effect in other photos.

A quick look through the LPI for magazine 49 shows the following pictures all show a similar effect. The degree of brightness appears to be linked to the angle of the lens to the lightsource.

AS12-49-7198

AS12-49-7201

AS12-49-7202

AS12-49-7223

AS12-49-7233

AS12-49-7247

AS12-49-7248

AS12-49-7249

AS12-49-7261

AS12-49-7262

AS12-49-7283

AS12-49-7294

AS12-49-7295

AS12-49-7300

AS12-49-7301

Now, if this was indeed a light(s) shining on a background, you'd expect the light aimed at the same place. Clearly that isn't the case, since these photos are taken in many different directions. This is, of course, entirely consistent with this being caused by light diffusing off something on the lens (e.g. dust). Check out this GIF created from images 7262, 7278, 7294, 7295. Clearly, the camera is pointing in different directions (check out the background), but the diffuse light(s) are exactly the same place in the frame (albeit of a slightly different intensity) - as you'd expect with a dusty lens.

a12_i.gif

5. Shadow on astronaut's left arm which should be in brightness.

As demonstrated, Jack has not correctly identified the location of the lightsource. The astronaut's left arm is simply in the shadow cast by his own body.

6. Photo shot from tripod, not chest-mounted Hasselblad.

Let's take a look at the reflection in the astronaut's visor. No tripod there: only an astronaut with a chest mounted-Hasselblad.

as12-49-7278-visor-reflection.jpg

There is even another reflection of the astronaut taking the picture, this time from the lens of the other camera. No tripod there either, just the astronaut.

as12-49-7278-lens-reflection.jpg

Jack has made the assumption that both astronauts are stood on level ground and are of the same height. However, both astronauts are inside Sharp Crater when the photo was taken - the astronaut taking the photo is simply further up the slope.

[Edit - spelling and formatting correction]

Edited by Dave Greer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

HEY! Langley was going to call me first this time!

You nailed it Dave. The high res image also shows us a number of interesting items.

First check out the Lens Flare caused by a REFLECTION of the sun offof the visor.

Second check out the reflecting of the sun ON THE LENS of the photographer as he is reflected in the visor. Clearly the sunlight struck the surface of he lens.

Third check out the massive amount of dust on the camera, lens body and the front element of the lens. There can be no doubt that the lenses were dust covered. On Apollo 12 the astronauts did not have a method to clean the lenses. On later missions a brush was provided. The fogging on the top portion of he frame is most likely dust induced flare.

Once more a perfect example of White's failure to understand the basics of photography.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow Dave , that was some of the best think tank pretend debunk evidence you have ever posted here ! ... And look at all the trouble you saved Craig too ... Lucky for him that Langley contacted you first .... :ph34r:

And since you did such a fine job with this one , here is your 1st place prize from the Ames Research Center ( the home of the faked Apollo photography )

It's your very own geek lunch box and thermous to take on your google challenge moon trip with Evan !

4a95_1.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey , what luck ! ... I found a lunch box for Evan too .... Now you both can take your peanut butter and jelly sandwiches to the Moon ! ... How kewl is that ?? :ph34r:

0880_1.JPG

Hey, Duane...that is a fake lunchbox. They have the astronot stepping

on the sun. Mr. Light will say that is just a reflection, but I know a fake

sun when I see one.

(Dust on the lens...hahahahahaheeheeheehee.That's a new one! In a

rectangluar shape no less. From the expert! Hahahahahahaha!)

:blink:

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack ... How did you figure out that it was a fake !?!? ... You are correct !

As a professional antiques dealer ( not to be confused with a professional photographer or a professional debunker of all Apollo hoax evidence ) , I know my authentic astronot collectibles when I see them ... So since you were able to spot that Evan's box is a fake ( dead give away was that fake Sun right in the middle of the box ) , you will now receive the grand prize of this very kewl original astronot lunch box , complete with it's original thermous !

7a0a_1.JPG

Say , maybe you could join Dave and Evan on their Moon trip now !! ... I bet they could enlarge the design of their moon mobile so you could ride along with them and give your expert opinion as to whether the photos they take on the Lunar surface are real or not !!

Edited by Duane Daman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner
Jack ... How did you figure out that it was a fake !?!? ... You are correct !

As a professional antiques dealer ( not to be confused with a professional photographer or a professional debunker of all Apollo hoax evidence ) , I know my authentic astronot collectibles when I see them ... So since you were able to spot that Evan's box is a fake ( dead give away was that fake Sun right in the middle of the box ) , you will now receive the grand prize of this very kewl original astronot lunch box , complete with it's original thermous !

7a0a_1.JPG

Say , maybe you could join Dave and Evan on their Moon trip now !! ... I bet they could enlarge the design of their moon mobile so you could ride along with them and give your expert opinion as to whether the photos they take on the Lunar surface are real or not !!

Duane, what I know about photography could be inscribed on the back of a postage stamp. That said, I find Dave's rebutal persuasive, if you contend he is in error it would be helpful for you to explain where, and how, that way us know nothings get to see both sides of the debate before making a judgement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow Dave , that was some of the best think tank pretend debunk evidence you have ever posted here ! ... And look at all the trouble you saved Craig too ... Lucky for him that Langley contacted you first .... :ph34r:

And since you did such a fine job with this one , here is your 1st place prize from the Ames Research Center ( the home of the faked Apollo photography )

It's your very own geek lunch box and thermous to take on your google challenge moon trip with Evan !

4a95_1.JPG

Duane, you're getting far too generous in your old age! First a space-suit, then a helmet, now this. Are you suggesting I take a long trip somewhere? :blink: Maybe you're hoping my evidence will go away too? No such luck I'm afraid! My 6 figure NASA salary makes me immune to such puerile attempts at bribery! [Disclaimer: no affiliation or association with any governmental department implied or or intended] ;)

Seriously, how about you or Jack come up with a proper answer to my rebuttal of Jack's main arguments? I think my explanation is quite clear. Any chance of a point for point rebuttal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow Dave , that was some of the best think tank pretend debunk evidence you have ever posted here ! ... And look at all the trouble you saved Craig too ... Lucky for him that Langley contacted you first .... :ph34r:

And since you did such a fine job with this one , here is your 1st place prize from the Ames Research Center ( the home of the faked Apollo photography )

It's your very own geek lunch box and thermous to take on your google challenge moon trip with Evan !

4a95_1.JPG

Duane, you're getting far too generous in your old age! First a space-suit, then a helmet, now this. Are you suggesting I take a long trip somewhere? :) Maybe you're hoping my evidence will go away too? No such luck I'm afraid! My 6 figure NASA salary makes me immune to such puerile attempts at bribery! [Disclaimer: no affiliation or association with any governmental department implied or or intended] ;)

Seriously, how about you or Jack come up with a proper answer to my rebuttal of Jack's main arguments? I think my explanation is quite clear. Any chance of a point for point rebuttal?

Dave you know you have Duane and Jack on the ropes when they resort to the distraction tactic. They have no counter arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack has made the assumption that both astronauts are stood on level ground and are of the same height. However, both astronauts are inside Sharp Crater when the photo was taken - the astronaut taking the photo is simply further up the slope.

Where is the proof that the astronot , allegedly taking this photo, was on higher ground ? .. The " Sharp Crater" link you provided mentioned nothing about a slope .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack has made the assumption that both astronauts are stood on level ground and are of the same height. However, both astronauts are inside Sharp Crater when the photo was taken - the astronaut taking the photo is simply further up the slope.

Where is the proof that the astronot , allegedly taking this photo, was on higher ground ? .. The " Sharp Crater" link you provided mentioned nothing about a slope .

I don't need to prove that he is on higher ground. The evidence is in the record: the photo in question shows the top of the astronauts helmet, the reflection of his visor shows the astronaut taking the photo (as does the reflection in the lens of the camera). This is more than adequately explained by them being on a slight slope inside a crater, which is where the official record places them.

Sorry to harp on about it again, but the burden of proof lies with someone alleging that this photo is faked to prove it. There is nothing in the photo that is anomalous with where it is supposed to be taken: in a crater on the moon. Jack attempted to show problems with this photo but failed: most importantly he incorrectly identified the direction of the lightsource, and much of the rest of his analysis collapsed because of that. Surely you'd at least agree that the shadow detail on the camera is proof that Jack has mis-identified the direction of the light-source? If not, why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave you know you have Duane and Jack on the ropes when they resort to the distraction tactic. They have no counter arguments.

I think Duane was just having a little leg-pull and a rib-tickle. :ph34r:

I do agree that there hasn't been much forthcoming in the way of a counter-argument though. Maybe it's being looked at by the good people at Aulis, or perhaps Duane's think-tank?

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...