One Giant Spotlight For All Mankind

[Craig Lamson]

Blue flare in daylight..taken today....

[Duane Daman]

I don't think that is DAC footage. I'll have to check, but I had always thought the DAC was normally left mounted inside the LM, pointing out a window. Those shots are too low an angle for that.

Let me get back to people on that one.

The bottom image is labeled "AS14-71-19509" but that must be incorrect. Magazine 71 carried aboard Apollo 14 was a B&W magazine, used on the way back to Earth. I don't have a listing of 16mm DAC footage, but I don't recall them giving them individual frame numbers. Duane, could you confirm the number?

Here are the links to those very dark Apollo 14 DAC frame grabs .

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/Apollo14/A...rfaceAct3FS.gif

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/mirrors/images...14/10075635.jpg

Can you explain why NASA mucked about with the DAC to where the picture could barely be seen ?

Here are the cleaned up versions , lightened up by David Percy .

Edited November 13, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Duane Daman]

Blue flare in daylight..taken today....

Not even close ... There is also GREEN in that lens flare .

You claimed that blue lens flare only shows up by sunlight when the camera lens is coated .... Where is your proof thas the 16 mm DAC camera lenses were coated ?

Because if they weren't , then it's proof of artificial lighting .

Edited November 13, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Craig Lamson]

Blue flare in daylight..taken today....

Not even close ... There is also GREEN in that lens flare .

Of course there is green flare, and red flare and magenta flare...its a multi-coated lens

You claimed that blue lens flare only shows up by sunlight when the camera lens is coated

I claimed no such thing, and I request you retact this false statement.

.... Where is your proof thas the 16 mm DAC camera lenses were coated ?

I have no proof that the lenses for the Maurer were coated or not, but given the dates and the fact that multi coatings were generally not available until the early 70's, if hte lenses WERE coated they would be single coated and single coating is BLUE.

Because if they weren't , then it's proof of artificial lighting .

Well, no its not. You have yet to explain WHY you think anything other that sunlight is ARTIFICAL and WHY YOU BELIEVE ANY LIGHT SOURCE OTHER THAN SUNLIGHT would cause blue lens flares.

Edited November 14, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Duane Daman]

ME : Where is your proof thas the 16 mm DAC camera lenses were coated ?

YOU : I have no proof that the lenses for the Maurer were coated or not

Thank you ... That's all I needed to know .

[Craig Lamson]

ME : Where is your proof thas the 16 mm DAC camera lenses were coated ?

YOU : I have no proof that the lenses for the Maurer were coated or not

Thank you ... That's all I needed to know .

Great, now why not answer my questions...if you can.

[Duane Daman]

"Well, no its not. You have yet to explain WHY you think anything other that sunlight is ARTIFICAL and WHY YOU BELIEVE ANY LIGHT SOURCE OTHER THAN SUNLIGHT would cause blue lens flares."

If that's the question you're referring to , then it's not even answerable ....

SUNLIGHT is natural light ... Any other type of light would be considered ARTIFICIAL , even on the Moon .

I have proven several times that artificial light , ie. stagelights , spotlights and streetlights cause a particular shade of blue lens flare ... A shade of blue which I haven't seen caused by sunlight yet .

Greer's example came the closest , but it still doesn't look like the blue lens flare of the Apollo 14 DAC grabs .

[Craig Lamson]

"Well, no its not. You have yet to explain WHY you think anything other that sunlight is ARTIFICAL and WHY YOU BELIEVE ANY LIGHT SOURCE OTHER THAN SUNLIGHT would cause blue lens flares."

If that's the question you're referring to , then it's not even answerable ....

Of course there is an answer, if as you claim, a lightsource other than sunlight is the CAUSE of blue lens flares, there is SOME reason why. You have made this amazing claim and now your answer is that the question of WHY is unanswerable! I'm in shock you could even write something like this !

Oh and btw, the lenses on the Maurer WERE coated...and given the date of use they were BLUE single coated.

In 1944 Kern were the first motinon pictutre lenses manufactured with anit-reflective coatings.

http://www.bolexcollector.com/lenses/40kern.html

What MORE do you need to know? Other than an answer to the question above?

SUNLIGHT is natural light ... Any other type of light would be considered ARTIFICIAL , even on the Moon .

Light is a natural byproduct of fire, light is a natural byproduct electricity passing through a tungsten wire, just light is a natural byproduct of the reaction on the sun. ALL light is real......

I have proven several times that artificial light , ie. stagelights , spotlights and streetlights cause a particular shade of blue lens flare ... A shade of blue which I haven't seen caused by sunlight yet .

No, you've not proven ANYTHING. Proof requires more than your uninformed opinion. You have been asked more that once to offer up a REASON why you think that a lightsource other than the sun has caused the blue lens flares...blue lens flares that have been shown to occur in sunlight images, which you claim is impossible. Can we expect some details soon or shall we just dismiss this as more ignorance on parade?

Greer's example came the closest , but it still doesn't look like the blue lens flare of the Apollo 14 DAC grabs .

Edited November 14, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

ME : Where is your proof thas the 16 mm DAC camera lenses were coated ?

YOU : I have no proof that the lenses for the Maurer were coated or not

Thank you ... That's all I needed to know .

More on the coatings of the DAC lenses:

see: AR

see: coated lenses

http://www.bolexcollector.com/glossary.html

[Craig Lamson]

I have proven several times that artificial light , ie. stagelights , spotlights and streetlights cause a particular shade of blue lens flare ... A shade of blue which I haven't seen caused by sunlight yet .

Just one more question Duane, it MUST have an answer.

You say that stagelights, streetlights etc. are the cause of the blue lens flares in the images you have posted. Now, if the light is making the lens flares blue, and since lens flare is caused by internal reflections of the lightsource in a lens, why are the flares blue (caused by the lightsource) and the entire rest of the photograph NOT blue as well? In other words, where is the BLUE coming from?

Edited November 14, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Duane Daman]

ME : Where is your proof thas the 16 mm DAC camera lenses were coated ?

YOU : I have no proof that the lenses for the Maurer were coated or not

Thank you ... That's all I needed to know .

More on the coatings of the DAC lenses:

see: AR

see: coated lenses

http://www.bolexcollector.com/glossary.html

The information you linked for AR doesn't say anything about what type of lens was used for the Apollo 14 DAC .

And strangely enough , I haven't found any information that does explain what type of camera lens was used for A14 , or even any other information about the A14 photography .

Here is some information about the Apollo 16 DAC , but still nothing about that type of lens that was used .

"The camera equipment stowed in the Apollo 16 command module comprised one 70 Hasselblad electric camera, a 16mm Maurer motion picture camera, and a 35mm Nikon F single-lens reflex camera. The command module Hasselblad electric camera was normally fitted with an 80mm f/2.8 Zeiss Planar lens, but a bayonet-mount 250mm lens could be fitted for long-distance Earth/Moon photos. A 105mm f/4.3 Zeiss UV Sonnar was provided for an ultraviolet photography experiment. More details of the Hasselblad cameras are given in Apollo 11 Hasselblad Cameras by Phill Parker "

http://history.nasa.gov/ap16fj/02photoequip.htm

And here is some information on the Apollo 15 DAC , but still nothing about the type of lens that was used .

"16-millimeter Maurer Data Acquisition Camera (DAC)

The 16-millimeter Maurer DAC had frame rates of 1, 6, and 12 fps in the automatic mode and 24 frames per second in the semiautomatic mode with corresponding running times of 93.3, 15.5, 7.8, and 3.7 minutes respectively. A green light emitted light pulses at the frame rates. Fiducial marks were recorded on the film. The camera could be handheld or used in a boresight mount on the lunar module on windows 1 or 3."

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apo...15/photography/

Could you please show some evidecne that Kern coated lenses were used for the Apollo 14 DAC ? .. Because so far you haven't provided any proof of anything .

As for your word games about natural light , artificial light , and the cause of blue lens flare , I'm really not interested in wasting my time playing ... I'm only interested in seeing the PROOF that the Apollo 14 DAC had a single coated lens that would produce the type of blue lens flare as seen in the A14 photography .... That will at least determine whether the scenes allegedly taken on the Moon were filmed indoors using ARTIFICIAL lighting , or outdoors , using the NATURAL light of the Sun .

[Evan Burton]

bump

[Gavin Stone]

Good morning Duane, long time no see

I'm going to go with the "spotlight" reflected on the visor thing first. Do you really want me to pull out the numerous Apollo pictures showing that "spotlight" for what it really is? Oh OK, you've convinced me!

This is a high resolution scan WITHOUT image processing.

Well that back of the "spotlight" is interesting. Maybe it's on of those magical spotlights from Happy Happy Joy Joy land that randomly change their back ends, either that or it's the sun highlighting a smudge.

Edited November 15, 2007 by Gavin Stone

[Gavin Stone]

1) If a spotlight was pointing directly at the astronaut (and if Duane was correct then it must be) - the back would never be visible based on its apparent position. EVER. It would always be behind the light.

2) If Duane was correct and that is a spotlight the light would not be visible at all as it would be shining directly to the left.

If you could, will you post an overhead diagram like mine of where you think the spotlight is placed.

Here is a the largest resolution of that Apollo 17 picture we have at present. Doesn't look so much like a spotlight anymore does it

Now to address the claims of the person being "much to small" to be an Astronaut. For this I draw from http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...ight&st=240, more specificaly Pericynthion - a fantastic guy, may I add.

"I decided to see if I could roughly replicate in miniature the conditions of shot 20387 to see whether or not the dark area in question could possibly be Jack Schmitt's shadow. To represent Jack, I dug up an ancient GI Joe figure which is also 1/6-scale. Both figures are 12 inches tall. I set up a single halogen spotlight 10 feet away from the Buzz Aldrin figure and about 3 feet off the floor. This puts the light source about 17 deg above the horizon, which is within the range of angles given by NASA for the sun's position during EVA 1, when the photo was taken. See here: Sun Angles

Once I had the light positioned, I moved the two figures around to try to approximately match (1) the sun position in Gene's visor, and (2) the size and position of Jack Schmitt's reflection in Gene's visor. Since I don't have data on the relative positions of the two astronauts, I do not claim that I am exactly recreating the Apollo 17 shot. This is merely an experiment to see whether it's possible for the dark area in the original photo to be Jack's reflection.

Here are a couple shots of the test setup:"

[Gavin Stone]

He then put his camera very close to the "Jack Schmitt" figure to represent the position of Jack's Hasselblad and snapped a shot of the "Gene Cernan" figure. Here's a closeup of the original shot, AS17-134-20387:

And here's his miniature approximation of the same shot, zoomed in on the visor:

A gif I made with additional proof that it's the astronauts shadow in the helmet reflection.

Think that's enough to leave you with for now.

Edited November 15, 2007 by Gavin Stone