(Merged) Fetzer / Burton Apollo Hoax debate thread

[Craig Lamson]

When Jack adjusted the contrast on this photo, stars should have been visible in the "lunar" sky, instead of a round spot of light, similar to that of a spotlight on a set.

Lets deal with this little gem first, since its a real whopper....

Please Duane, since you are so sure stars should have been exposed, quote for us the shutter speed and f-stop that must be used to overcome the threshold of exposure for ISO 160 film and allow it to record the light of distant stars, on film.

[Kevin M. West]

When Jack adjusted the contrast on this photo, stars should have been visible in the "lunar" sky, instead of a round spot of light, similar to that of a spotlight on a set.

If the stars didn't register on the film, then how would they show up on a digital scan of the same film made decades later?

If "dust on the lens" were really causing this photographic anomaly, then that same "dust" would be evident on more than just this one ( or possibly a few other) photo .. Since dust (whether lunar or simulated by NASA ) seemed to be covering everything, then all of the Apollo photos would show the "dust on the lens" problem, instead of just this one, or posibly a few others, where this particular anomaly has occured.

Why would all of the photos show the same effect? Dust accumulates over time, and can also be cleaned off. There's no reason to expect the same effect to show up on all of the photos.

That's why your typical Apollogists excuses of "dust on the lens", or "compression artifacts", or "pixel size", or "cropped images" or

"smudges on the visors" are nothing but lame attempts to explain away the MULTITUDE of ANOMALIES found in the official Apollo photographic record.

Cheers

I don't see what's lame about any of those explanations, they are all perfectly valid explanations for a variety of so-called "anomalies" seen in the apollo photos.

[Jack White]

Has anyone "debunked" this yet? If so, I missed it.

Jack

[Jack White]

Showing his ignorance of photography, West said:

"If the stars didn't register on the film, then how would they show up on a digital scan of the same film made decades later?"

Anyone who has worked in a darkroom is always amazed at the amount of information actual neg or transparency. Any good

print is only an OPTIMUM AVERAGE of the best exposure values. Dark areas of a print, when printed a much shorter time, will

show much detail unseen in the best optimum print.

Computer analysis is based on recovery of this marginal unseen information. Black areas in a genuine photo will be filled

with detail which a computer scan can recover. A CERTAIN GIVEAWAY in computer enhancement is when ANY AREA WHICH

HAS BEEN BLACKED IN FAILS TO SHOW ANY DETAIL, like stars, or things hidden in shadows.

All Apollo skies which are solid black WITH NO DETAIL are by definition FAKE or PAINTED IN.

Jack

Edited September 14, 2010 by Jack White

[Jack White]

This is where Even was being coy with you. He asked if he could make separate posts to each of Jack's

photos. That not only strings things out too much and makes it more difficult to follow but changes the

complexion of the debate, since he is then DEBATING JACK, NOT DEBATING ME.

Of course he is debating Jack, Jack is posting more than just images, he's posting images with arguments included. If Jack would post just the images, and you the arguments, then it would be fair for Evan to only respond to you. But that isn't what is happening.

This is absurd. Jim and Evan are debating MY STUDIES posted at AULIS.COM.

For them to discuss the studies, the studies must be posted...not just photos.

You have been asleep while this was being discussed.

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

Has anyone "debunked" this yet? If so, I missed it.

Jack

What's to debunk? Clearly not your sorry attempt at "computer enhancement". As for the image and the Apollo Image Gallery, it is still there, took me all ot 10 seconds to find it.

[Craig Lamson]

Showing his ignorance of photography, West said:

"If the stars didn't register on the film, then how would they show up on a digital scan of the same film made decades later?"

Anyone who has worked in a darkroom is always amazed at the amount of information actual neg or transparency. Any good

print is only an OPTIMUM AVERAGE of the best exposure values. Dark areas of a print, when printed a much shorter time, will

show much detail unseen in the best optimum print.

Computer analysis is based on recovery of this marginal unseen information. Black areas in a genuine photo will be filled

with detail which a computer scan can recover. A CERTAIN GIVEAWAY in computer enhancement is when ANY AREA WHICH

HAS BEEN BLACKED IN FAILS TO SHOW ANY DETAIL, like stars, or things hidden in shadows.

All Apollo skies which are solid black WITH NO DETAIL are by definition FAKE or PAINTED IN.

Jack

Jack is showing his ignorance of the properties of film, photographic exposure, digital levels adjustment and jpg compression.....

Stars in the skys of the Apollo surface images? Does Jack understand the subject of a films characteristic curve and the concept of Exposure Threshold? Lets ask him to explain how these work in relation to to the Apollos surface photography.

And thanks so much for the statement about the Apollo skies. You will be eating those words very soon.

[Evan Burton]

No Jim, I'll continue to moderate outside that thread. If your actions require moderation, all mods will be consulted before any action is taken. I will not moderate you unilaterally. The fact that we are debating on a thread where i accept you can make personal attacks on me does not give you carte blanche to make personal attacks on me and others outside of the debate thread.

Evan,

Surely even you can appreciate that, as a participant in our "debate", you should not be moderating either the

debate thread or the discussion thread. Ask John to appoint someone in your stead to fulfill those roles with

respect to both threads. If we have a moderator for the debate thread, he should moderate this one as well.

Jim

Jim,

You have made repeated personal attacks on members. These are to cease or the moderating team will consider disciplinary action.

[Dave Greer]

Has anyone "debunked" this yet? If so, I missed it.

Jack

Jack

Looks like you clicked on the mission name, which just gives a selection of images (including training images, pre-flight, post-flight etc). If you click on Full Hasselblad Magazines, then select the magazine number, all the images are there, including your image.

Here's the link.

[Duane Daman]

Showing his ignorance of photography, West said:

"If the stars didn't register on the film, then how would they show up on a digital scan of the same film made decades later?"

Anyone who has worked in a darkroom is always amazed at the amount of information actual neg or transparency. Any good

print is only an OPTIMUM AVERAGE of the best exposure values. Dark areas of a print, when printed a much shorter time, will

show much detail unseen in the best optimum print.

Computer analysis is based on recovery of this marginal unseen information. Black areas in a genuine photo will be filled

with detail which a computer scan can recover. A CERTAIN GIVEAWAY in computer enhancement is when ANY AREA WHICH

HAS BEEN BLACKED IN FAILS TO SHOW ANY DETAIL, like stars, or things hidden in shadows.

All Apollo skies which are solid black WITH NO DETAIL are by definition FAKE or PAINTED IN.

Jack

Jack is showing his ignorance of the properties of film, photographic exposure, digital levels adjustment and jpg compression.....

Stars in the skys of the Apollo surface images? Does Jack understand the subject of a films characteristic curve and the concept of Exposure Threshold? Lets ask him to explain how these work in relation to to the Apollos surface photography.

And thanks so much for the statement about the Apollo skies. You will be eating those words very soon.

It looks like the one eating your words ( or perhaps some stars ) is you, Craig.

When the Apollo photos are contrast adjusted (like Jack did on the one Dave claims to show "dust on the lens") stars should show up in the "lunar" skies, instead of spotlight effects.

Brilliant Stars in Image: AS15-85-11425HR

This image is enhanced only with Window's Photo Gallery, I did it in less than a minute.

(only right side and top of original)

This photo came from NASA... Below is the enhanced sky of image AS12-48-7121. At the top and left of the center, a shooting star can be seen. It looks like Al did not take this picture on the Moon but on the Earth. Meteorites are rocks that burn in Earth's atmosphere. The creators of NASA pictures kept forgetting that the Moon has no atmosphere, there are no shooting stars, no waving flags, no light dispersion, no red horizon, etc...

http://gianthoax.com/moonhoax/

imo, the difference between some Apollo photos showing stars, while others show spotlight effects, is not only where the photos were staged, but also how they were staged.. ie; outdoor sets, indoor sets, small scale models, or the use of front screen projection and image compositing.

Edited September 15, 2010 by Duane Daman

[Craig Lamson]

Duane,I'll ask you again. Please tell us what exposure time/ f-stop would be needed for ISO 160 film to overcome the threshold of exposure and record faint stars on film. This is pretty sandard stuff Duane.

You ignored the hard question as usual and instead quoted a guy who can't even get the lens used on the lunar surface correct....

Your answer is?

[Evan Burton]

REPLY TO BURTON'S FIRST RESPONSE (IN THREE PARTS)

Part 1: Evan claims to have "demonstrated" that the tracks left depend on the surface it is traveling over, that the wheels can throw lunar soil or dust and cover those tracks, that astronaut activity around the rover can obliterate tracks, that light, shadow and angle can hide tracks in photographs, and that it makes no sense to lower the rover into position when it could be rolled or driven there.

Or, as John Dolva has observed, the rover tracks might have been brushed out by the cleaning lady during breaks between shots (on the discussion thread in post #108). John, no doubt, meant this as a witty remark, but it reflects the weakness of Evan's response. He offers suggestions as to how the rover's tracks might have been obscured in some cases, but they suffer from serious weaknesses:

(1) He treats possibilities as though they were probabilities and seeks to convert them into certainties. This is analogous to the defense of the "magic bullet" theory by arguing that the shots attributed to Oswald were "possible". When you consider the relevant evidence, the theory is not only false but provably false and not even anatomically possible ("Reasoning about Assassinations").

It's funny how Jim has switched it around here; he and Jack treat the absence of LRV tracks as PROOF that Apollo was faked. They decide that the absence of tracks in some locations can only be explained by fakery. On the other hand, we "Apollogists" show that that there are far more mundane explanations available, any one or a combination of them which could explain the lack of tracks. We ask you to think: which is more likely? Convoluted lowering of machines into positions on a sound stage and "overseers" forgetting about that in numerous images on numerous missions, no-one ever noticing... or walking over tracks, boots kicking up dust, and just plain lighting which makes things difficult to see?

(2) The acid test of Evan's rebuttal is the ground between the tires. There would appear to be no good reason why there are no tracks between them, when tracks would have been made whether the rover was driven or pushed into position no matter if that was forward or backward. The fact that there are no tracks between the tires in many photos, including Evan's own, proves the point.

Take a look at the dirt on the LRV. Look how dirty the astronauts got. Look how they get on and off the LRV... right over the area between the wheel. Have a look at

, whatch how the dust is thrown around. Isn't it possible that activity and dust have covered the tracks? On the other hand, if Jim and Jack are right, then no tracks should ever be visible because the LRV never moved, right? Again - which makes more sense?

(3) The virtually complete absence of atmosphere on the moon makes his suggestions even less plausible. Unless he wants to claim that the astronauts were crawling under the rover, the most it would be reasonable to expect from his alleged "explanations" would be the partial obfuscation of those tracks. What we have is complete absence of tracks at the place we most expect to find them.

While Evan's suggestions may sound initially plausible, that appears to be due to the psychological tendency to draw comparisons with experiences on Earth, where the wind can blow and dirt be scattered. But there is no air on the moon. What we are looking for is the most reasonable explanation for the absence of moon tracks in some of these photos. Evan, alas, has not provided one.

Jim unintentionally gives support to my argument. In air and under normal gravity, dust tends to billow and to blow around. In a vacuum, the dust follows a parabolic curve and does not billow. Watch the LRV footage; watch how it behaves. The behaviour demonstrates that the footage was taken in a vacuum, low-gravity environment.

Where on Earth is that? Nowhere. It's on the Moon.

[Craig Lamson]

Nice job Duane, linking us to jpg artifacts of scanned b/w film grain and smudges. Really impressive stuff.

[John Dolva]

Evan debate thread: ''In a vacuum, the dust follows a parabolic curve and does not billow. Watch the LRV footage; watch how it behaves. The behaviour demonstrates that the footage was taken in a vacuum, low-gravity environment.

Where on Earth is that? Nowhere. It's on the Moon.''

No doubt some convoluted counter argument will be presented.

This is part of the hoaxters problem. As logic bites into their increasingly weird contributions they merely continue to paint themselves into a corner (often accompanied with cries of foul and diversions into the personal). The simple explanations demand more complex counters increasing the number of ways of fakery to the point where not just the evidence but Occams Razor looms over everything.

[Duane Daman]

Nice job Duane, linking us to jpg artifacts of scanned b/w film grain and smudges. Really impressive stuff.

The AS15-85-11425HR image used by that researcher was from a Hassie high res original NASA photo, not from a scanned copy.

So stars are really jpg artifacts, film grain and smudges? .. Wow, you Apollogists really do have a prepared mundane excuse for each and every anomaly found in the faked Apollo photos.

Who woulda thunk it?