One Giant Spotlight For All Mankind

[Evan Burton]

Duane,

If you are so firmly rooted in your beliefs, why don't you set up a similar experiment to show your point of view? These are some of the most important things we can bring to the debate... an opportunity for people to conduct their own experiments, and verify for themselves who is - and who is not - correct in their claims.

[Duane Daman]

Been there , done that ... Not interested ... but thanks for wanting to play again Gavin

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=1371470

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=1373249

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=1373407

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=1373545

Sorry oh blind one , but it's NOT the shadow of an astronot .

Now if we could return to discussing the A14 DAC lens , before we were so rudely interupted , I would apprciate it .

[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

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 .

See below

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 .

[Mike Caplinger, systems engineer at Malin Space Science Systems for the Mars Descent Imager on-board the Mars Polar Lander writes " The Apollo 11 Lunar Module carried a 16-millimeter Maurer Data Acquisition Camera. The camera was used to record the descent, ascent, and some surface operations."]

[Lotzmann - "The LM camera was fitted with an 10-mm wide-angle lens. The 10-mm lens has a horizontal field of view of 54.9 degrees and a vertical field of view of 41.1 degrees. The lens was manufactured by Kern in Switzerland The camera was mounted above the right-hand window, looking forward and down."]

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11.landing.html

and...

Lenses. Three lenses of different focal length are provided for use on the 16 mm camera.

10 mm. A medium wide-angle lens, the field of view being 41.1 degrees x 54.9 degrees. It is used for internal crew activities and equipment when details are required. Focus is from 6 inches to infinity with aperture openings from f 1.8 to 22. It has two spike-like handles for setting f-stop and distance with the gloved hands.

18 mm Kern. A lens of slightly wide-angle design and high optical quality. Primary use is for vehicle-to-vehicle photography while bracket-mounted at left or right rendezvous window. It is also the widest angle lens that may be used with the right-angle mirror. This lens is usually stowed on the camera. Viewing angle of 24 x 32 degrees and weight is approximately 0.80 pound and has two spike-like handles for setting the f-stop and distance with the gloved hand. This improved lens has larger numbers for reading while in the EV spacesuit.

75mm Kern. A medium telephoto lens design with excellent optical properties. Primary use is for photography of distant objects and ground terrain. Usually used on the window-mounted camera. Viewing angle of 6 x 8 degrees, weight is approximately 0.80 pound. This lens is similar in appearance to the new 18 mm lens and has two handles for f-stop and distance, gloved hand

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

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 .

This whole lens coating issue is a sideshow Duane, fun and informative but a sideshow regardless. Your claim that it is the type of light that is causing the blue flare is the real issue. Sadly you are working from a point

of ignorance here.

You are the the one who is playing the games. Ther is a VERY simple question on the table that you are unable to answer and it goes directly to your silly claim that some lighttsource other that the sun is the cause of the blue flares. So here it is again..and no games from you this time...

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 15, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Duane Daman]

The blue is coming from the artificial light source reflecting off the camera lens

So now that we have that one all settled , would you like to explain why the real Sun doesn't look anything like the Apollo ''Sun" ?

[Dave Greer]

Sorry oh blind one , but it's NOT the shadow of an astronot .

Care to point out where the shadow should be, if not where it actually appears to be?

Now if we could return to discussing the A14 DAC lens , before we were so rudely interupted , I would apprciate it .

OK. I think we left off with you needing to prove that the DAC lens wasn't single coated. Have you managed to turn up any proof of that yet? Do we really need to drag this out, since I've already shown a DAC clip from a Gemini mission in LEO that shows entirely blue lens flares?

[Dave Greer]

Duane, a lot of your insistence that your interpretation of these "visor reflection anomalies" is the corect one seems based on the notion that "dusty scratches" on visors are either negligible or non-existent.

Take a look at this GIF, made by cropping and scaling 2 Apollo 17 images taken just seconds apart. Due to a minor variation in angle, you get to see quite effectively how reflections behave, and how scratches behave. I've centred both crops on the reflection of the astronaut taking the picture. It is quite clear that there are a lot of scratches on the visor. For example, look at the feature just above and to the rightof the astronauts reflection. If I wanted to be creative and use my imagination, I'd say this was a space jellyfish. I can clearly make out the stingers coming down and surrounding the astronaut. If I then switch on the "anomaly filter" that I apparently have in my brain, I see some boring old dusty scratches. Similarly with the reddish-coloured vertical hotdog to the bottom right. Surely not the rover fender?

How dull.

The images are:-

as17-134-20476

as17-134-20477

Here's a link to some higher quality crops - the GIF software reduces the resolution slightly.

Crop of 20476

Crop of 20477

Edited November 15, 2007 by Dave Greer

[Dave Greer]

Not that I wish to be accused of over-egging the pudding, but...

118:25:54 - Gene Cernan takes the following photo of Jack Schmitt near the flag, with Earth in the background.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20384HR.jpg

After that, they swap places, and 30 seconds later Jack Schmitt returns the favour by taking this photo of Gene Cernan holding the flag, with Earth in the background.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20385HR.jpg

Let's concentrate on the reflections in the visors and see what we can see. Since they are reflecting the same scene, but in different visors, we may be able to see things in one visor that aren't as clear in the other.

Crop of 20384 (Schmitt's visor)

Rotated crop of 20385 (Cernan's visor)

Comparing the 2 crops, it's very clear that the dark area to the right of the reflection of the astronaut is most certainly his shadow. Schmitt's visor doesn't seem as scratched as Cernan's so the outline of the shadow is more clear.

Here they are superimposed as a GIF. Helmet's at slightly different angles, but you can see what are reflections, and what are scratches/dust.

No horns. No feathers. No cameras with telephoto attachments. Nothing more than a plain, boring old shadow. Strange that an astronaut on the moon should cast a shadow in the full glare of the sun, but there you have it folks.

Incidentally, it's also clear from these two photographs that there are no spotlight brackets visible in Schmitt's visor. Is it more likely or less likely that the feature on Cernan's visor is going to be that of a stagelight bracket that mysteriously appeared in 30 seconds, or scratches on the visor that we know exist! (See my animated GIF in previous post, or check out the specular reflections off scratches in AS17-134-20380).

[Jack White]

What a lotta nonsense! And who is this newcomer Gavin? What are

his credentials and where did he get his expensive toys? Are such

miniatures NASA-issue?

Distractions do not address the question. Things are not shadows

just because you claim they are.

Jack

[Dave Greer]

What a lotta nonsense! And who is this newcomer Gavin? What are

his credentials and where did he get his expensive toys? Are such

miniatures NASA-issue?

Distractions do not address the question. Things are not shadows

just because you claim they are.

Jack

Neither are things feathery horns or telephoto cameras just because you or Duane say that's what they look like to you.

On the other hand, there is an abundance of evidence that what we see is a plain, old common or garden shadow.

Let's see... light source? Check. Object (astronaut)? Check. Shadow? Well, the dang thing has got to be somewhere, and it had better be on the side away from the light source or we're in trouble. Oh look, dark patch on the floor leading up to the astronauts feet! That couldn't possibly be a shadow could it? Hmmm... how many photographs do we see this in on this film roll alone? Getting on for double figures.

The real question is, how can anyone who expects to be taken seriously reject out of hand the "shadow theory", which is based on both common sense and observable and empirical evidence, in favour of something they've conjured up out of their imagination! It's an insult to people's intelligence!

[Craig Lamson]

What a lotta nonsense! And who is this newcomer Gavin? What are

his credentials and where did he get his expensive toys? Are such

miniatures NASA-issue?

Distractions do not address the question. Things are not shadows

just because you claim they are.

Jack

Translated from jackspeak:

I'm up a creek without a paddle again and looking a bit foolish, so lets attack the new guy and hope it distracts from the weight of his evidence.

And besides, please don't excpect me to understand anything about light and shadows because that stuff really messes me up.

[Evan Burton]

The blue is coming from the artificial light source reflecting off the camera lens

So now that we have that one all settled , would you like to explain why the real Sun doesn't look anything like the Apollo ''Sun" ?

Because one is taken through the atmosphere, and one is not. The atmosphere causes the colour difference. The size difference in the apparent disks could be due to any number of factors - the most obvious being zoom.

[Evan Burton]

What a lotta nonsense! And who is this newcomer Gavin? What are his credentials and where did he get his expensive toys? Are such miniatures NASA-issue?

Distractions do not address the question. Things are not shadows just because you claim they are.

Jack

Who are you to ask where he comes from? Did you bother to read the biography Gavin posted?

Are they expensive toys? I don't know. Not that expensive to my knowledge, about $70 for a 1/6th model. I know people who pay a lot more for similar items. I mean, a Micky Mouse figure for $75? A 'Star Wars' walker for $200?

The figures are produced by a private company called Dragon Models. You have been told this before, I believe, in a previous thread some time ago.

So who should people believe? A recreation of conditions, which demonstrate effects, and which anyone with the desire can recreate... or Jack who says "TRUST ME!" and hurls abuse at anyone who disagrees with him? Who cannot stand to admit he might have been wrong about something? Who constantly ignores questions which are too hard or too embarrassing for him?

I know who I'll trust.

[Evan Burton]

Come on Jack - fair is fair. I have showed you a number of examples regarding flare / halo, and not once do they mention atmospheric effect.

Show us some photographic references where they talk about flare / halo being caused by the atmosphere (except the previously mentioned 22 degree effect).

Are you able to do this, to show some evidence? Or is merely your opinion?

Nearly a week, and still no evidence to refute what I have said. Nada. Nothing. Only attacks on people who disagree with him.

Do you have some Japanese in your heritage Jack? You demonstrate a remarkable proclivity to mokusatsu - to "kill with silence". You seem to do that with most posts that disagree with your Apollo studies.

[Gavin Stone]

What a lotta nonsense! And who is this newcomer Gavin? What are

his credentials and where did he get his expensive toys? Are such

miniatures NASA-issue?

Distractions do not address the question. Things are not shadows

just because you claim they are.

Jack

Ahh Jack White.

Your reputation procedes you. I'd like to thank you for not bothering to read my post properly. If you would have done, you'd have realised they are not actually my models, and I was sourcing the pictures from elsewhere; but I digress. What are my credentials? If you are so inclined, you can read my biography here.

No Jack, things are not shadows because I say they are, things are shadows because basic Physics says so. An astronaut in a place with one light source (whether you think it is spotlight or sun) is going to create a shadow, on this we can agree. If you look at the location of the sun and the direction of the shadow, I don't find it convenient that where you would expect his shadow to be, there is a dark patch looking remarkably like a shadow. That said, the burden of proof is not on me - it is on you. You must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the dark patch is not a shadow, for that I wish you good luck (you will need it).

[Craig Lamson]

The blue is coming from the artificial light source reflecting off the camera lens

No, thats not the case at all, for if it were why are blue flares also present in daylight photos?

So now that we have that one all settled , would you like to explain why the real Sun doesn't look anything like the Apollo ''Sun" ?

No that one is NOT settled and will not be until you renounce your claim that its the type of lihgt that is causung the blue flares.

The Apollo sun and the earth sun look exactly the same, they are the bright spots in the center of the flares. They are different sizes due to different lenses. And the lens flares are different for the same reason. Oh and the sky is different too. But the suns are exactly the same.