One Giant Spotlight For All Mankind

[Duane Daman]

Who said anything about that photo being "faked" ? ... I said it was "SELF SERVING " .

You don't really expect anyone to believe that some arrows pointing to dark or light spots on the lunar surface is any proof of them being the "LM" or the "disturbed soil from the astronot's bootprints " do you ?

How high above the surface do you figure those photos were taken ? .... That will tell you exactly high long that "shadow" is .... There is no way to photograph the alleged tiny little bitty LM bottom from lunar orbit ... So do you really think that long shadow could have possibly been made by an object that is too tiny to even photograph using today's technology ?

Now you're being just as ridiculous as NASA was when they tried to pass off that photo as showing the details of the alleged Apollo 15 landing site .

Edited December 18, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Duane Daman]

Now if you want to discuss some "faked" Apollo 15 photos , how about explaining those unphotographable stars in all of the Apollo moonset photography ?

Did the photographer who put this little gem together for the Apollo 15 photo shoot (not showing any astronots BTW ) perhaps forget that stars can't be photographed from the "lunar surface" ? ... Or are those maybe little white paint specks where one of nasa's many artists got a tad careless ?

AS15-85-11405HR

But then , 10 photographs later ( with an astronot shadow now in the picture ) , we see a very different looking photo ... The lighting looks brighter , the background "mountains" look more like a painted set , the shadows are nowhere to be seen and neither are any of the "stars " !

AS15-85-11415HR

Edited December 18, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Gavin Stone]

Duane,

I don't believe they are stars. They look like some sort of 'specular highlight' that have been caused by the scanning process. I got hold of the ultra high resolution version of this and as you can see (look at the far right hand side of the frame) there appears to be a lot of damage to the frame. It could also be dust, it's hard to tell. I'd say though that whatever they are, as they expand across the entire frame and not just in the sky that they are a function, or disfunction, of the scanning process.

http://www.landingapollo.com/ISD_highres_A...15-85-11405.JPG

Edited December 18, 2007 by Gavin Stone

[Matthew Lewis]

Looks to me like dust from the scanning process. Especially since some of your "stars" can be seen on the ground.

[Dave Greer]

Who said anything about that photo being "faked" ? ... I said it was "SELF SERVING " .

Evidence is evidence regardless of the source. It's up to individuals to establish the validity or otherwise of the evidence itself on its own merits.

I'm assuming you are insinuating the photograph is faked, since to say otherwise means that you accept that this is good evidence. Perhaps you could clarify whether you believe these photos to be "fake" or "genuine"?

You don't really expect anyone to believe that some arrows pointing to dark or light spots on the lunar surface is any proof of them being the "LM" or the "disturbed soil from the astronot's bootprints " do you ?

People can believe what they like. You can either accept the photo as genuine, in which case it is good supporting evidence for Apollo, or you remain skeptical, or you can believe it to be faked. If you believe the latter, then you must at least accept that NASA has gone to incredible lengths to produce faked evidence that has so many internal consistencies, not just at the time of Apollo, but in subsequent years. There's a very good analysis of the Clementine photos of the Apollo 15 landing site below (thanks to Pericynthion for the link). I suppose it's theoretically possible that NASA had the Clementine data altered, and that Kreslavsky and Shrukatov are paid Government disinformationists, but how likely is it that NASA would be able to keep the charade going for so many years, without a single person of conscience coming forward and blowing the whole thing wide open? And what about the non-NASA probes that will be circling and photographing the moon in coming years? Will the Japanese, Chinese, Indians, and Europeans all be cow-towing to NASA, and dutifully altering all their images of Apollo landing sites, just to save NASA the embarrassment of coming clean about Apollo?

ANOMALIES OF THE LUNAR REGOLITH STRUCTURE IN THE VICINITY OF APOLLO-15 LANDING SITE: RESULTS FROM PHOTOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF CLEMENTINE UVVIS IMAGES, Kreslavsky M. A. and Shkuratov Yu. G. (2001) LPS 32, #1075

How high above the surface do you figure those photos were taken ? .... That will tell you exactly high long that "shadow" is .... There is no way to photograph the alleged tiny little bitty LM bottom from lunar orbit ... So do you really think that long shadow could have possibly been made by an object that is too tiny to even photograph using today's technology ?

Now you're being just as ridiculous as NASA was when they tried to pass off that photo as showing the details of the alleged Apollo 15 landing site .

Strange how you decide what I think in advance and then say that I'm being ridiculous! I'll save that quote as an instant demonstration of the perfect strawman fallacy - falsely represent your opponents position to make it easier to argue against.

Firstly, the height above the surface isn't the only thing you need to know in order to calculate the length of the shadow. You also need to know the FOV of the camera/lens (or the focal length of lens and the film format). You'd also need an accurate copy of the entire image - not a crop. IIRC these details are available on the ALSJ.

Since you have already determined the length of the shadow to be "obviously many miles in length", then I assume you have researched this properly and actually calculated this value? Please do provide those calculations so that they can be verified or falsified. Or are you just hand-waving?

Why do you say there is no way to photograph the LM from lunar orbit? Doesn't that depend on the height of the orbit above the area being photographed? And on the lens/camera being used to do the photography? Do you not understand the principle that a low sun angle will cast shadows longer than the object? That the shadow may have a greater contrast against the lunar regolith than the top of the LM? That these are the reasons why it may be easier in some circumstances to photograph the LMs shadow from orbit rather than the LM itself?

I'll make this easy for you to comprehend with an earth-bound example. Here's a photo captured from Google Earth of a golf course I frequent. It's centred on the sixth tee. There's a strange white blob on the tee casting an elongated shadow due to the low sun angle. In my opinion, it's impossible to see from the photo was the strange white blob actually is. A snowman? A maypole? An image artefact? A golf ball? Possibly even a golfer? I think most people would arrive at that conclusion, without being able to say for definite that it's a golfer. Just because we can't see his Nike hat, his plus-fours and his Callaway driver, doesn't mean we should ridicule that assumption, since the evidence points to it being a golfer.

Apply the same logic to the Apollo 15 orbit photos. There is a shadow cast by something, right where the LM should be. The shadow gets shorter in between successive photos (as the sun is rising), and we see evidence of astronaut activity around the object casting the shadow. The logical conclusion is that it is very probably the LM, regardless of the fact that we can't see the antennae and US decals.

PS Before you ask, I know for a fact that it's not a photo of me. The angle and length of shadow indicate a morning tee off.

Edited December 19, 2007 by Dave Greer

[Dave Greer]

Now if you want to discuss some "faked" Apollo 15 photos , how about explaining those unphotographable stars in all of the Apollo moonset photography ?

Did the photographer who put this little gem together for the Apollo 15 photo shoot (not showing any astronots BTW ) perhaps forget that stars can't be photographed from the "lunar surface" ? ... Or are those maybe little white paint specks where one of nasa's many artists got a tad careless ?

AS15-85-11405HR

As pointed out to you, they aren't stars. Why do you claim they might be stars? Are you still of the opinion that it should be possible to photograph a star from the moon's surface, with the camera settings adjusted for photography on a sunny day? If not, why do you say these might be stars? (Obviously you were being jovial about the "white paint specks" comment!)

This goes back to the comments made earlier, that you re-hash old arguments. Time to put up or shut up: do you believe that stars should have been imaged in Apollo surface photos where the camera was exposed for sunny surface conditions? Don't muddy the issue by saying they could have brought a tripod and used longer exposure times, just answer the question as is.

But then , 10 photographs later ( with an astronot shadow now in the picture ) , we see a very different looking photo ... The lighting looks brighter , the background "mountains" look more like a painted set , the shadows are nowhere to be seen and neither are any of the "stars " !

AS15-85-11415HR

You do realise that the two photos are taken in different directions, and show entirely different mountains? The first image is looking (approximately) north-east, the second is looking west.

Armed with this new knowledge, I'm sure you'll be able and eager to figure out the answers to your questions yourself.

[Duane Daman]

Duane,

I don't believe they are stars. They look like some sort of 'specular highlight' that have been caused by the scanning process. I got hold of the ultra high resolution version of this and as you can see (look at the far right hand side of the frame) there appears to be a lot of damage to the frame. It could also be dust, it's hard to tell. I'd say though that whatever they are, as they expand across the entire frame and not just in the sky that they are a function, or disfunction, of the scanning process.

http://www.landingapollo.com/ISD_highres_A...15-85-11405.JPG

Thanks for that ultra high res version of that photo ... I don't think the white specks are "stars" either ... I was just having a laugh .... Obviously there would be no stars on the A15 moonset .... So it was just careless work after all .

[Duane Daman]

I'll make this easy for you to comprehend with an earth-bound example

It's condescending comments like that one which make it extremely difficult to discuss any of this with you .

Perhaps you should read my post again ... I don't believe the Apollo 15 aerial photo is "faked" , I think it is "self serving" to nasa's agenda of pretending to have landed men on the Moon during the Apollo Program .

I don't care how far above the lunar surface it was taken , nor do I care what tree shadows look like from an airplane .

There is NO PROOF that the dark line is the shadow of the LM bottom ... and as for China and Japan or any other country who has the capability to orbit the Moon , isn't it very convienant for NASA that NONE of them have the capability to photograph the Apollo trash allegedly discarded on the lunar surface ?

I also realize that the two Apollo 15 photos I posted above ( one with an astronot shadow and one without ) show different mountains with very different lighting conditions on the moonset , as I already mentioned .

[Dave Greer]

I'll make this easy for you to comprehend with an earth-bound example

It's condescending comments like that one which make it extremely difficult to discuss any of this with you .

I take it then you do understand the point I was making, that you don't need to have an ultra-high resolution image of the LM from orbit to formulate an informed opinion on what might cause the shadow?

Perhaps you should read my post again ... I don't believe the Apollo 15 aerial photo is "faked" , I think it is "self serving" to nasa's agenda of pretending to have landed men on the Moon during the Apollo Program .

OK, you don't believe the photo is faked. Perhaps then you'd care to share with us your explanation for the differences between the two photos, given that you're admitting it's not faked? The "self-serving" premise is irrelevant if you don't think the photos are faked. All you now need to do is come up with an explanation that fits the facts better than the "official version". There's plenty of evidence in the two photos to support the official version. All you have to do is point out where the interpretation given by the author is incorrect, and why.

I don't care how far above the lunar surface it was taken , nor do I care what tree shadows look like from an airplane .

But you are claiming that the shadow is "obviously several miles long"! How do you come to this conclusion? If it's so obvious, you must at least be able to provide an answer. Do you stand by your initial statement that the shadow is "obviously several miles long"? If so, why?

The shadow of the golfer was there to demonstrate that you can make intelligent inferences as to what may cause a shadow without requiring a high-resolution image of the object. Whether you care or not, the point needed to be made since you appear to be sneering at the notion that the LM would cast such a shadow.

There is NO PROOF that the dark line is the shadow of the LM bottom ... and as for China and Japan or any other country who has the capability to orbit the Moon , isn't it very convienant for NASA that NONE of them have the capability to photograph the Apollo trash allegedly discarded on the lunar surface ?

Never said it was PROOF - it is EVIDENCE that should be examined on merit. It appears to be consistent with the Apollo 15 landing site - unless you choose to believe that the shadow is "obviously several miles long", when there is absolutely no evidence for such a claim.

I also realize that the two Apollo 15 photos I posted above ( one with an astronot shadow and one without ) show different mountains with very different lighting conditions on the moonset , as I already mentioned .

If you realise that, then you should also understand why one has shadows and the other doesn't. And why the surface appears brighter in one image than the other. (Hint: upsun versus downsun).

[Evan Burton]

Not to interrupt too loudly, but notice how Jack has gone all quiet regarding my challenge... again? Still? I think the likely answer for why is because he knows that there is a very good chance of professionals telling him that he misused the imaging programme (be it Photoshop or Gimp or whatever). Even though this is just an insignificant "study" compared to the rest of Jack's work, IMO Jack will not admit even the slightest hint of fallibility. We all make mistakes from time to time - but I get the impression that Jack would rather do many other things than admit his mistakes, to we 'Apollogists', on this subject.

Of course, it is very easy for Jack to prove me wrong, give me a slap-down... all he has to do is let professionals give an opinion.

[Duane Daman]

I take it then you do understand the point I was making, that you don't need to have an ultra-high resolution image of the LM from orbit to formulate an informed opinion on what might cause the shadow?

It might be your opinion that the black spot is the LM shadow but it's my opinion that's it's NOT because not only is there NO PROOF that the LM is even on the Moon , the LM can't be seen or photographed on the Moon , has never been seen or photographed on the Moon and at the rate Japan , China , NASA and every other country are going may NEVER BE SEEN OR PHOTOGRAPHED ON THE MOON ....

OK, you don't believe the photo is faked. Perhaps then you'd care to share with us your explanation for the differences between the two photos, given that you're admitting it's not faked? The "self-serving" premise is irrelevant if you don't think the photos are faked. All you now need to do is come up with an explanation that fits the facts better than the "official version". There's plenty of evidence in the two photos to support the official version. All you have to do is point out where the interpretation given by the author is incorrect, and why.

The author is incorrect because light and dark spots on the surface of the Moon do not LM's and LM shadows make , except in the overactive imaginations of those who want them to be the discarded Apollo trash .

But you are claiming that the shadow is "obviously several miles long"! How do you come to this conclusion? If it's so obvious, you must at least be able to provide an answer. Do you stand by your initial statement that the shadow is "obviously several miles long"? If so, why?

The shadow of the golfer was there to demonstrate that you can make intelligent inferences as to what may cause a shadow without requiring a high-resolution image of the object. Whether you care or not, the point needed to be made since you appear to be sneering at the notion that the LM would cast such a shadow.

No , I don't stand by my initial statement that the "shadow is several miles long "because I didn't realize how close the aerial camera was that took that picture ... So obviously it's not that long .

I am "sneering at the notion that the LM would cast such a shadow " for the simple reason that there is no proof and most likely never will be any proof that the LM is even there to make a shadow .

Never said it was PROOF - it is EVIDENCE that should be examined on merit. It appears to be consistent with the Apollo 15 landing site - unless you choose to believe that the shadow is "obviously several miles long", when there is absolutely no evidence for such a claim.

Good because it's NOT PROOF .... and it's "merit" as EVIDENCE of anything is nothing but an OPINION based on a particular belief system concerning the reality of Apollo missions landing where NASA claimed they did .

If you realise that, then you should also understand why one has shadows and the other doesn't. And why the surface appears brighter in one image than the other. (Hint: upsun versus downsun).

Yes , I do realize why one photo has shadows and the other doesn't and why it also has a completely different look to it altogether . ( Hint: upstage versus downstage .)

[Duane Daman]

Not to interrupt too loudly, but notice how Jack has gone all quiet regarding my challenge... again? Still? I think the likely answer for why is because he knows that there is a very good chance of professionals telling him that he misused the imaging programme (be it Photoshop or Gimp or whatever). Even though this is just an insignificant "study" compared to the rest of Jack's work, IMO Jack will not admit even the slightest hint of fallibility. We all make mistakes from time to time - but I get the impression that Jack would rather do many other things than admit his mistakes, to we 'Apollogists', on this subject.

Of course, it is very easy for Jack to prove me wrong, give me a slap-down... all he has to do is let professionals give an opinion.

But you ALWAYS interrupt too loudly , and unfortunately for all of us , your interruptions are ALWAYS the same thing .... Attacking Jack and his Apollo studies .

Apparently he has no interest in replying to your insulting posts here , so instead of continuing to attack him , why don't you go get the wrecker on the moonset study analysed by the "professionals" and then report back to us all with your predictable findings .

Edited December 19, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Jack White]

Not to interrupt too loudly, but notice how Jack has gone all quiet regarding my challenge... again? Still? I think the likely answer for why is because he knows that there is a very good chance of professionals telling him that he misused the imaging programme (be it Photoshop or Gimp or whatever). Even though this is just an insignificant "study" compared to the rest of Jack's work, IMO Jack will not admit even the slightest hint of fallibility. We all make mistakes from time to time - but I get the impression that Jack would rather do many other things than admit his mistakes, to we 'Apollogists', on this subject.

Of course, it is very easy for Jack to prove me wrong, give me a slap-down... all he has to do is let professionals give an opinion.

But you ALWAYS interrupt too loudly , and unfortunately for all of us , your interruptions are ALWAYS the same thing .... Attacking Jack and his Apollo studies .

Apparently he has no interest in replying to your insulting posts here , so instead of continuing to attack him , why don't you go get the wrecker on the moonset study analysed by the "professionals" and then report back to us all with your predictable findings .

Duane...my email is down at the moment and won't be fixed till tomorrow,

or I would send you my original PHOTOSHOP file to post for the benefit of Burton.

I challenge HIM to have ANY PROFESSIONAL replicate my work. Heck, no need

to get a pro...any competent amateur can do it. Or maybe I can post it when

I return from a dental appointment, if the file is not too large to post. I usually

don't use photoshop, but in the case of the wrecker I did. Gotta go to the

dentist now.

Jack

[Duane Daman]

Good luck at the dentist Jack .... and as soon as your e-mail is back up again , send me the file ... I will be happy to post it for you if need be .

This isn't Jack's wrecker on the moonset study but it's one that I have been wondering about for quite some time now ... In my own experience from what I understand about perspective of large distant objects , usually the closer one gets to them the larger they look and the further away from the large object , the smaller they look .... Yet in this Apollo 17 photo it shows the exact opposite.

Can one of the "Apollo apologists " please explain this strange occurance to me ? ... and while you're at it , could you also please explain why the rock, which has been pointed out , remains the same size , even though the photographer has moved much further away from it , the LM and that now enormous mountain in the second photo .

Edited December 19, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Dave Greer]

This isn't Jack's wrecker on the moonset study but it's one that I have been wondering about for quite some time now ... In my own experience from what I understand about perspective of large distant objects , usually the closer one gets to them the larger they look and the further away from the large object , the smaller they look .... Yet in this Apollo 17 photo it shows the exact opposite.

Can one of the "Apollo apologists " please explain this strange occurance to me ? ... and while you're at it , could you also please explain why the rock, which has been pointed out , remains the same size , even though the photographer has moved much further away from it , the LM and that now enormous mountain in the second photo .

Good question Duane. One that is easily answered if you look at the original images at the same resolution.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-147-22527HR.jpg

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20435HR.jpg

Here's a crop taken of both images - with NO change in scale between them.

Quite clearly, the rock in question appears smaller in the photo taken further away from the LM - just as you'd expect. It appears that all Jack did was scale both images so that the rock was the same size in both, without saying he'd done that. The question is, why did he do that and not inform us?

The mountain in the background appears to be approximately the same size - you can see this by looking at the triangle of three light coloured craters on the South Massif. How can this be if this is a backdrop on a soundstage? Wouldn't the backdrop appear to change size much more apparently between photos if it was, what, 50-100 yards away? The mountain in the background is the South Massif, which is approx 3-5 miles away from the LM, which explains why there isn't much change in apparent mountain size between the two photos (looks to me like the second photo is anywhere from 100 - 200 yards away from the LM).