One Giant Spotlight For All Mankind

[Craig Lamson]

Is that changing the topic because you know you are getting beat? The C-rock has also been extensively discussed elsewhere. I'll post the details shortly.

"Getting beat" ? .... By what ? ... Video bloom and a 'C' rock ? ... You have to be kidding !

Please spare me your disertation on the 'C' rock and let's get back on TOPIC then .... To refresh your memory of what that topic is , please refer to the photos posted on page one ... and then show me this evidence , if you can .

Well I'm still waiting for you photo experts to produce one out of thousands of photos allegedly taken on the Moon showing a circular Sun with concentric light spokes, either in the lunar sky or reflected in an astronot's visor .

AS14-66-9230

[Evan Burton]

Duane, apologies but just lead me through this again.

You want me to find an image taken on the lunar surface which shows the sun with concentric light spokes, or a reflection of the sun in an astronauts visor which also show concentric light spokes.

Correct?

Can you just explain (again, I know, thus my apology) why the concentric light spokes are important? Why they show authenticity whereas anything else indicates a forgery?

[John Simkin]

John / Andy,

Request you investigate Jack's claim and publicly report your findings. Once more, by the same people, my character is being called into question and I would like full public disclosure of the results.

I believe these claims are vexatious in nature.

I can confirm that Evan has not deleted/altered any of Duane's posts. You are warned that if you continue to spread lies about our moderators your membership will be deleted.

[Dave Greer]

Well I'm still waiting for you photo experts to produce one out of thousands of photos allegedly taken on the Moon showing a circular Sun with concentric light spokes, either in the lunar sky or reflected in an astronot's visor .

Here's a few, from each mission (A15 excepted).

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5875HR.jpg

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-47-6919HR.jpg

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-46-6790HR.jpg - bonus one - 3 specular reflections off LM showing concentric light spokes

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-66-9230HR.jpg (Cheers Craig)

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-114-18388HR.jpg

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

[Duane Daman]

The last photo link you chose to post here just happens to show one the strangest visor reflection anomalies of them all .

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

We have debated this one before , so I'm really not interested in playing the "smudge on the visor" game with you again .... The reflection clearly shows an artifact that looks very much like some type of stagelight or spotlight ... As seen even more clearly with the help of your "borrowed" GIF ..

And also with one of Jack's studies .

And with one of my studies also.

As for the other photos you linked above , none of them even come close to looking like this photo of the real Sun taken in the vacuum of space from low Earth orbit ...

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l12/straydog_02/A5.jpg

Nor have I seen any photo of the Sun that looks like this one ( taken from the vacuum of space in low Earth orbit ) from the alleged lunar surface .

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t173/Mi...1-36-5293-1.jpg

Instead the Apollo "Sun" looks like this .

AS12-46-6765

But according to recent state of the art computer enhancement , that Apollo "Sun" was really a huge spotlight with a light bulb reflector in the middle of it .

Not "lens flare " .

Edited October 29, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Dave Greer]

And also with one of Jack's studies

Jack is nearly on the right lines when he says "Specular highlights off an unknown object". The unknown object is right in front of him, so I'm not sure why he neglects to mention it. The sun visor.

Why does he just state that the reflection of the astronaut is "too small to be an astronaut"? Why do you accept that claim at face value? He doesn't even say how big he thinks the reflection of an astronaut should be. Has he accounted for the fact that the visor is a convex surface? Has he measured how far away the astronaut taking the picture actually is? If he hasn't done any of these things, how can he possibly make such statements as that?

And with one of my studies also.

What you've highlighted could only be the astronaut's shadow if the light source was in front of him (the astronaut reflected in the visor). But if the light source was in front of him, then the front of his suit would be more brightly lit. You can clearly the the left rear edge of the suit is more brightly lit than the front, suggesting the lightsource is to the left, and slightly behind the astronaut. If the lightsource is the sun, then the reflected shadow should go to the right and slightly in front of the astronaut's reflection. There is indeed a dark patch of ground visible there, but it's impossible to be certain that it's his shadow - it might be a crater or other surface feature.

Luckily we have other photos we can look at for comparison - namely the next two in the series. Here's links to all tyhree images:-

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

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20386HR.jpg

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20387HR.jpg

Here are zoomed crops of each image showing the area of the visor under discussion.

AS11-34-20385

AS11-34-20386

AS11-34-20387 (the astronaut taing the photo has moved closer, and is bending down on one knee to get the Earth in shot as well.

I think it's pretty clear it's the reflection of the astronaut in red, and his shadow in blue.

As for the other photos you linked above , none of them even come close to looking like this photo of the real Sun taken in the vacuum of space from low Earth orbit.

I haven't had much chance to think about the difference between the appearance of the sun in lunar surface and Earth LEO photos. My initial reaction is to look at difference in the environment. The LEO photo is taken through two layers of glass with reflective coatings which may well reduce the amount of glare in the image. My second reaction is that the shape of the lens flares suggests that the aperture setting is much wider in the Apollo lunar surface photos, which would also account for the sun being highly over-exposed.

[Jack White]

John / Andy,

Request you investigate Jack's claim and publicly report your findings. Once more, by the same people, my character is being called into question and I would like full public disclosure of the results.

I believe these claims are vexatious in nature.

I can confirm that Evan has not deleted/altered any of Duane's posts. You are warned that if you continue to spread lies about our moderators your membership will be deleted.

By my count, seven postings I have made in recent weeks NEVER APPEARED.

I DO NOT KNOW THE REASON FOR THIS, AND HAVE BLAMED NOBODY. I have

merely reported that this happened.

Obviously THEY ARE NOT IN FORUM RECORDS that you can check SINCE THEY

NEVER APPEARED. If you check, you will see that I did not accuse Burton of

anything. I do not know a reason for this, contrary to claims.

The possibility exists that the seven postings were held up so long that they

appeared MUCH LATER on pages later than PAGE TWO. I never check any

pages except Page ONE and Page TWO. That is why I suggested that all

moderated postings be posted within a certain time limit.

Jack

[Dave Greer]

Instead the Apollo "Sun" looks like this .

AS12-46-6765

But according to recent state of the art computer enhancement , that Apollo "Sun" was really a huge spotlight with a light bulb reflector in the middle of it .

All this was discussed on a previous thread Duane. Here's my "state of the art computer enhancement" of four different photos from different missions showing the Apollo sun. The artefacts both within and without the overexposed glare from the sun (which is clearly NOT the sun's disc) lie on the same axes - good evidence for them being lens flares. Why do insist they can not be cused by lens flare?

And an even better one from the same thread that I'm sure Kevin West won't mind me posting on his behalf.

This one is a clincher - quite clearly the internal structure of the over-exposed part is perfectly aligned with the visible lens flare outside the overexposed part.

Jack even posted a series of images which confirms this.

The large circle is glare due to over-exposure of the very bright sun. The internal features are quite clearly lens flare - otherwise you'd need to explain why they ALWAYS match up with the visible lens flares outside the over-exposed zone.

That's the main point I'd like you to address as you've raised this issue again - why do say that the internal features, which always align with external lens flares, can not possibly be lens flares? Doesn't this evidence make you even slightly suspicious that you might be wrong, and that it could indeed be lens flare? (An admission of lens flare isn't an admission that it's caused by the sun, it's simply an admission that there is a bright light source in the photos which causes lens flare).

Edit - inserted quote tag.

Edited January 6, 2008 by Dave Greer

[Evan Burton]

John / Andy,

Request you investigate Jack's claim and publicly report your findings. Once more, by the same people, my character is being called into question and I would like full public disclosure of the results.

I believe these claims are vexatious in nature.

I can confirm that Evan has not deleted/altered any of Duane's posts. You are warned that if you continue to spread lies about our moderators your membership will be deleted.

By my count, seven postings I have made in recent weeks NEVER APPEARED.

I DO NOT KNOW THE REASON FOR THIS, AND HAVE BLAMED NOBODY. I have

merely reported that this happened.

Obviously THEY ARE NOT IN FORUM RECORDS that you can check SINCE THEY

NEVER APPEARED. If you check, you will see that I did not accuse Burton of

anything. I do not know a reason for this, contrary to claims.

The possibility exists that the seven postings were held up so long that they

appeared MUCH LATER on pages later than PAGE TWO. I never check any

pages except Page ONE and Page TWO. That is why I suggested that all

moderated postings be posted within a certain time limit.

Jack

Jack, I have looked over your posts in this thread and you are correct. You never accused me of anything. Your posts were quoting Duane's comments, mentioned my name, and were asking what was going on with your posts. I incorrectly believed they were accusing me directly. I apologise for jumping to conclusions.

My suggestion would be that if you have submitted a post, and it hasn't turned up within 24 hours, contact a mod and ask them to investigate. It might be that the post is being held in abeyance; it might be the post has been overlooked; it might be that the post was never received and you'll need to resend it.

For that reason, if the post is anything but a one or two liner which you can easily redo, make a copy of the post so that you can easily resend it. If the posts is not appearing for unknown reasons, you can send it to a mod / admin and they will post it for you (subject to moderation). If you send it to another member to post on your behalf, please remember that that is circumventing the moderation process and the member posting on behalf of you will be held responsible for the contents.

[Len Colby]

Just for those interested - the C-rock:

http://www.lunaranomalies.com/c-rock.htm

Back to the C-rock tangent, apperently the 'C' appead in a copy of AS 16-107-17446 on one, but not other NASA sites. The same rock appears in the previous photo on the role AS 16-107-17445. Can Duane or Jack find any copies of that image with the 'C'? If it really was a prop it should appear in both photos.

[Len Colby]

if the post is anything but a one or two liner which you can easily redo, make a copy of the post so that you can easily resend it.

How many times has Jack been told this? Even Della Rosa told him to but he still refuses to do so. If he looses a post he has no one to blame but himself. He enjoys playing the victim it seems.

[Duane Daman]

Dave .... Your visor reflection analysis couldn't be more incorrect if you tried .

We are discussing two Apollo photos AS17-134-20385HR and AS17-134-20387HR ... Both of which I have posted the links to in high resolultion .

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...134-20385HR.jpg

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...134-20387HR.jpg

As we can see by my annotations in the pictures below , the red arrow points to the body of the spotlight reflected in the visor and the shadow of it on the ground .

The yellow arrow ponts to the astronot reflected in the visor and a shadow directly across from him that looks more like an alien than an astronot , and is not even in the correct position to be his shadow ... This is what is known as Whistle-Blowing !

The blue arrow points to an object that looks very much like a black horn with feathers hanging from it ... This is either some type of stage production object that accidently showed up in the visor reflection , or perhaps another fine example of obvious Whistle-Blowing .

But is most definately NOT the shadow of the astronot , as you falsely claimed , as it is not even close to the shape or appearance of the shadow of a man in a spacesuit !

In the next photo , the yellow arrow points to the spotlight and it's obvious dark shadow on the ground ... If you study the photo you will see that they are the same shape .... You also made the false claim that this was the shadow of the astronot , but as we can see is not even close to the shape of a man in a spacesuit either !

The red arrow points to the astronot and to the "alien " shadow still next to him , in the wrong position to really be his shadow ...So this would be an example of more fun Whistle-Blowing .

The blue arrow points to the dark horn shaped object, which you incorrectly claimed was the astronot's shadow ...It has now been lightenend to the point of almost being invisible in this photo , but if you look closely at the high res photo from the Apollo Image Gallery , you can see that it is still there , though partially disguised now .

Edited November 1, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Duane Daman]

As for your 'lens flare" analysis , it's as incorrect as your visor reflection analysis .

How strange that you used Jack's study for this one , as it is some of the best proof that the Apollo 12 "Sun " was really a spotlight .

I know that "lens flare" is one of your favorte 'rebuttals' in attempting to explain away the faked Apollo photos , but in this instance , it just doesn't fly at all .

Since when would "lens flare" create a geometric square shape attached to the end of an oval shape ? ... Since NEVER is when !

Here again is Jack's computer enhanced study which clearly shows that the Apollo 12 "Sun" was really a spotlight with a reflector light bulb in the middle of it .

And here is the type of spotlight bulb which is an exact match in shape , for what is seen in the Apollo 12 study .

http://www.lampspecs.co.uk/core/media/medi...amp;resizew=125

http://www.lampspecs.co.uk/Light-Bulbs-Tub...34Pa38Ta38Paxz0

Edited November 1, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Dave Greer]

Dave .... Your visor reflection analysis couldn't be more incorrect if you tried .

Duane, I'm more than happy to let my analysis of these photos stand, as I'm convinced that any lurkers reading the thread will be able to see whose interpretation actually makes sense, and whose was dreamt up in fairyland!

As for a horn shaped object covered in feathers, that's your best yet! I'll admit one thing, your creativity is improving. How did I ever imagine it could be something as boring as scratches on the visor, and an astronaut casting a shadow. Such bland, everyday things obviously never happen in a world where feathery horns exist on moonsets.

Let's let anyone following the thread come to their own conclusions by looking at this crop taken from the "ultra high resoution" version of this photo on the Gateway to Astronaut Photography site here.

So, I leave it to you, gentle reader, to come to your own conclusions. Is it REALLY possible for an astronaut's visor to get dusty and scratched (shock horror!) And would you honestly expect an astronaut to cast a shadow without it being a carbon copy of his outline on a rough, pock-marked surface like the moon? Or do you think it more likely that a whistleblower decided to leave a large horn-shaped object on the moonset, and stick a few feathers on it. Right in between both astronauts. Perhaps while the Men In Black casually pointed their Hechler and Koch's in the opposite direction.

I vote for the hairy horn explanation. Far more exciting than dusty scratches and shadows.

Edited November 4, 2007 by Dave Greer

[Craig Lamson]

Dave .... Your visor reflection analysis couldn't be more incorrect if you tried .

Duane, I'm more than happy to let my analysis of these photos stand, as I'm convinced that any lurkers reading the thread will be able to see whose interpretation actually makes sense, and whose was dreamt up in fairyland!

As for a horn shaped object covered in feathers, that's your best yet! I'll admit one thing, your creativity is improving. How did I ever imagine it could be something as boring as scratches on the visor, and an astronaut casting a shadow. Such bland, everyday things obviously never happen in a world where feathery horns exist on moonsets.

Let's let anyone following the thread come to their own conclusions by looking at this crop taken from the "ultra high resoution" version of this photo on the Gateway to Astronaut Photography site here.

So, I leave it to you, gentle reader, to come to your own conclusions. Is it REALLY possible for an astronaut's visor to get dusty and scratched (shock horror!) And would you honestly expect an astronaut to cast a shadow without it being a carbon copy of his outline on a rough, pock-marked surface like the moon? Or do you think it more likely that a whistleblower decided to leave a large horn-shaped object on the moonset, and stick a few feathers on it. Right in between both astronauts. Perhaps while the Men In Black casually pointed their Hechler and Koch's in the opposite direction.

I vote for the hairy horn explanation. Far more exciting than dusty scratches and shadows (which blithering idiot thought THAT lame excuse up???)

Dave, there is also the fact that great video exists (and that I am too lazy to find just now) that shows this situation as it haqppens and shows EXACTLY where the shadows fall. Duane could not be more wrong.

But the bigger question here is WHY Duane has shifted the argument away from the sunlight reflections from the visors? Has he conceeded the argument?