(Merged) Fetzer / Burton Apollo Hoax debate thread

[Craig Lamson]

Nice work, Duane. Of course, Lamson will never admit he's wrong. And the use of digital rather an analog photographs

can't serve as a "catch all" excuse, either, unless it can be shown that, in a specific case, it makes a relevant difference.

Nice work doing what? Pointing out JPG artifacts? Priceless stuff Jim!

Lets address the shortcomings of your statement here, besides the fact that that your photographic knowlege base is non existant.

In this instance the use of a digtial copy of a analog negative is the SPECFIC CASE. The Negative was SCANNED and then the file INVERTED to produce the positive seen on the web. This is a fact Jim and it makes ALL THE DIFFERECNE in the world.

WHY. because its the SOURCE of the texture that caused the jpg artifacts you and Duane call "stars".

Of course the real problem the both of you have is that fact that the film, at the exposure values used on the moon, was not cabable of recording the light from the faint stars in the first place.

Of course you can attempt to prove the world wrong and show us the calculations that will prove that stars can be recorded on the film used the surface of the moon using full sun exposure settings. Why don't you do that for us JIm, and show us thatthis is indeed "good work"

There's no point in ridiculing Jim, just because he made a mistake about what I proved you wrong about .. It wasn't my mistake about those enhanced photos showing "stars", since Jack pointed out that I was wrong about that .. and unlike the Apollogists, when I'm wrong, I will admit it.

His comment saying you will never admit when you're wrong, is obviously true, since you just proved that with your latest tap dancing, smoke blowing nonsense.

Jim's remarks .. "And the use of digital rather an analog photographs can't serve as a "catch all" excuse, either, unless it can be shown that, in a specific case, it makes a relevant difference.".. applies to ALL of the photo studies that you, West, Greer and Burton will pretend to debunk in the furture.

I hope that clears up that misunderstanding.

No Duane it WAS YOUR mistake. YOU brought the information here and claimed it was correct...you take the burden of blame.

Please show where I was wrong. I'm not not the one here believing jpg artifacts are stars...staes that cannot be recorded with the exposure setting used on the moon...that would be you and Jim. Digital artifacts were the cause of your glaring error. Sheesh.

Digital IS the format in use. Izt suffers from COMPRESSION ERRORS. This is a simple fact of life. But it is once again instruective. IN years of debate wiht Fetzer it has become very clear that he knows NOTHING of the photographic process, digital or analog. His comments, when taken with the common understanding of his lack of photographic knowlege, are rendered more than useless. You, wiht a similar and proven lack of photographic knowlege, quoting Fetzer is comedy in the extreme.

[Duane Daman]

The second quote about the 80mm is for the camera used in the command module.

Appatrently you can't read either.. The camera used for Apollo 17 had a 70MM standard lens with an 80MM adaptor.. It was NOT a 60MM lens, like Lamson claimed.

80 mm f/2.8 Lens. Standard or normal lens for the 70 mm camera with 2-1/4 x 2-1/4-inch film format. Used for general still photography when a wide angle or telephoto view is not required. Focuses from 3 feet to infinity. Has built-in shutter with speeds from 1 second to 1/500 second. Field of view, each side, is approximately 38 x 38 degrees.

The 70mm refers to the film format (i.e. the width of the film), NOT the focal length of the lens. The lunar surface phtography was all done with either 60mm lenses, or 250mm lenses. As previously pointed out to you, the 80mm lems was used from the Command Module, for example when they were in Earth orbit. As has also been pointed out to you, some of the images under discussion show that top of the South massif, which is not same as the horizon the author calculated. In addition, several of the images he posed didn't even show the horizon.

You appear to be as wrong as Lamson is ..

"The Camera Equipment

The Apollo 17 mission was designed to obtain the most extensive quantity and variety of photography of any mission thus far. There were several different varieties of photographic equipment, both on the surface and in orbit. The camera equipment operated on the lunar surface or in the LM by Astronauts Scott and Irwin included three 70-millimeter Hasselblad Data Cameras (HDC, LM1, LM2), a 16-millimeter Data Acquisition Camera (DAC), and a color TV camera (LM4) or Lunar Surface TV camera. The main photographic tasks during orbit were performed with the Mapping Camera System and the Panoramic Camera, which were in the SIM bay. Various tasks were also accomplished using four command module cameras: a 70-millimeter Hasselblad electric camera, a 16-millimeter Maurer DAC, a 35-millimeter Nikon, and a Westinghouse color TV camera.

70-millimeter stills (Hasselblad Camera)

Three 70-millimeter Hasselblad data cameras were carried by the astronauts on the lunar surface. Two cameras (LM2) were equipped with 60-millimeter focal length lenses; the other had a high-resolution 500-millimeter lens (LM1). These cameras were battery powered, semiautomatic, and, for most operations, attached to the astronauts' pressure suits at chest height. The astronauts could initiate the operation sequence by squeezing a trigger mounted on the camera handle, and the cameras were operable at check stops at each half-stop value. A reseau grid was installed in front of the image plane to provide photogrammetric data, and the cameras were accurately calibrated."

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_17/photography/

Edited September 15, 2010 by Duane Daman

[Craig Lamson]

The second quote about the 80mm is for the camera used in the command module.

Appatrently you can't read either.. The camera used for Apollo 17 had a 70MM standard lens with an 80MM adaptor.. It was NOT a 60MM lens, like Lamson claimed.

80 mm f/2.8 Lens. Standard or normal lens for the 70 mm camera with 2-1/4 x 2-1/4-inch film format. Used for general still photography when a wide angle or telephoto view is not required. Focuses from 3 feet to infinity. Has built-in shutter with speeds from 1 second to 1/500 second. Field of view, each side, is approximately 38 x 38 degrees.

The 70mm refers to the film format (i.e. the width of the film), NOT the focal length of the lens. The lunar surface phtography was all done with either 60mm lenses, or 250mm lenses. As previously pointed out to you, the 80mm lems was used from the Command Module, for example when they were in Earth orbit. As has also been pointed out to you, some of the images under discussion show that top of the South massif, which is not same as the horizon the author calculated. In addition, several of the images he posed didn't even show the horizon.

You appear to be as wrong as Lamson is ..

"The Camera Equipment

The Apollo 17 mission was designed to obtain the most extensive quantity and variety of photography of any mission thus far. There were several different varieties of photographic equipment, both on the surface and in orbit. The camera equipment operated on the lunar surface or in the LM by Astronauts Scott and Irwin included three 70-millimeter Hasselblad Data Cameras (HDC, LM1, LM2), a 16-millimeter Data Acquisition Camera (DAC), and a color TV camera (LM4) or Lunar Surface TV camera. The main photographic tasks during orbit were performed with the Mapping Camera System and the Panoramic Camera, which were in the SIM bay. Various tasks were also accomplished using four command module cameras: a 70-millimeter Hasselblad electric camera, a 16-millimeter Maurer DAC, a 35-millimeter Nikon, and a Westinghouse color TV camera.

70-millimeter stills (Hasselblad Camera)

Three 70-millimeter Hasselblad data cameras were carried by the astronauts on the lunar surface. Two cameras (LM2) were equipped with 60-millimeter focal length lenses; the other had a high-resolution 500-millimeter lens (LM1). These cameras were battery powered, semiautomatic, and, for most operations, attached to the astronauts' pressure suits at chest height. The astronauts could initiate the operation sequence by squeezing a trigger mounted on the camera handle, and the cameras were operable at check stops at each half-stop value. A reseau grid was installed in front of the image plane to provide photogrammetric data, and the cameras were accurately calibrated."

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_17/photography/

Earth to Duane, Earth to Duane. 70mm is the FILM SIZE.

"Two cameras (LM2) were equipped with 60-millimeter focal length lenses"

Sheesh, admit you screwed up AGAIN.....

[Dave Greer]

You appear to be as wrong as Lamson is ..

"The Camera Equipment

The Apollo 17 mission was designed to obtain the most extensive quantity and variety of photography of any mission thus far. There were several different varieties of photographic equipment, both on the surface and in orbit. The camera equipment operated on the lunar surface or in the LM by Astronauts Scott and Irwin included three 70-millimeter Hasselblad Data Cameras (HDC, LM1, LM2), a 16-millimeter Data Acquisition Camera (DAC), and a color TV camera (LM4) or Lunar Surface TV camera. The main photographic tasks during orbit were performed with the Mapping Camera System and the Panoramic Camera, which were in the SIM bay. Various tasks were also accomplished using four command module cameras: a 70-millimeter Hasselblad electric camera, a 16-millimeter Maurer DAC, a 35-millimeter Nikon, and a Westinghouse color TV camera.

70-millimeter stills (Hasselblad Camera)

Three 70-millimeter Hasselblad data cameras were carried by the astronauts on the lunar surface. Two cameras (LM2) were equipped with 60-millimeter focal length lenses; the other had a high-resolution 500-millimeter lens (LM1). These cameras were battery powered, semiautomatic, and, for most operations, attached to the astronauts' pressure suits at chest height. The astronauts could initiate the operation sequence by squeezing a trigger mounted on the camera handle, and the cameras were operable at check stops at each half-stop value. A reseau grid was installed in front of the image plane to provide photogrammetric data, and the cameras were accurately calibrated."

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_17/photography/

I'll say it again, the 70mm refers to the film format, or the width of the film, not the focal length of the lens.

The 80mm lens as never used on the surface during Apollo 17, it was only ever used from the Command Module. (For the sake of accuracy, in my previous post, the other lens used on Apollo 17 should have read 500mm).

According to all the sources I can find, there was NO photograph taken from the surface during Apollo 17 that used the 80mm lens.

Those details aside, the facts still stand, in the photos that allegedly show a pasted in Earth, they either don't show any of the lunar surface, or they show the top edge of the South Massif, (which is considerably higher than where the horizon would otherwise be). IIRC one image may show the horizon and the Earth at the same time: this one was taken with the camera held at an approximate 45 degree angle: the diagonal filed of view is clearly greater than the horizontal or vertical field of view.

The terminology can be confusing since they use the same units, so I advise reading up on the difference between film format of a camera (e.g. 70mm, or 35mm on Apollo), and focal length of a lens (e.g. 60mm, 80mm, 250mm, 500mm).

[Jack White]

Lots of people here do not understand or misrepresent what computer enhancement consists of.

OF COURSE it alters images. (some have accused us of altering images)

That is part of the process. The computer operator has little control over the result, except to

tell the computer what to look for. The computer does the rest.

Some of the simpler controls are changing contrast, sharpness, and brightness. But the most

revealing control is ADDING OR SUBTRACTING RED-GREEN-BLUE hues and tones from an image

(even bw images). This brings about varying combinations of images which may be studied

by the operator. Subtraction of color causes A MOTTLED APPEARANCE in a genuine photo. If the

photo has a retouched area, the computer will reveal it to be different than the genuine areas.

Here is such an example. The photograph has a mottled appearance (red arrow) where the

unretouched area exists. But WHERE THE SOLID BLUE UNMOTTLED AREA APPEARS, IT CLEARLY

IS RETOUCHED...because the blue area shows NO MOTTLING. Before people comment on such

things, they should know what they are talking about.

Jack

PS...the first image is the correct one. I posted the other one without saving a change, and

cannot figure how to delete it.

Edited September 16, 2010 by Jack White

[Evan Burton]

Amazing! Duane, why can't you just admit you made a mistake? We've all made errors in the past, and to be able to admit when one is in error is a sign of character.

*********

Yes, I've challanged Jack on his "use" of Photoshop in the past. Challanged him to show what changes he made to an image in his "analysis" to those skilled in the use of Photoshop, specificly the makers themselves. It's another one of those things he avoids.

[Craig Lamson]

Lots of people here do not understand or misrepresent what computer enhancement consists of.

OF COURSE it alters images. (some have accused us of altering images)

That is part of the process. The computer operator has little control over the result, except to

tell the computer what to look for. The computer does the rest.

Some of the simpler controls are changing contrast, sharpness, and brightness. But the most

revealing control is ADDING OR SUBTRACTING RED-GREEN-BLUE hues and tones from an image

(even bw images). This brings about varying combinations of images which may be studied

by the operator. Subtraction of color causes A MOTTLED APPEARANCE in a genuine photo. If the

photo has a retouched area, the computer will reveal it to be different than the genuine areas.

Here is such an example. The photograph has a mottled appearance (red arrow) where the

unretouched area exists. But WHERE THE SOLID BLUE UNMOTTLED AREA APPEARS, IT CLEARLY

IS RETOUCHED...because the blue area shows NO MOTTLING. Before people comment on such

things, they should know what they are talking about.

Jack

PS...the first image is the correct one. I posted the other one without saving a change, and

cannot figure how to delete it.

So Jack, are you SURE you have it correct here? Why don't we check your work? Since you have cropped the wizz out of the image making identification near impossible, please provide the image number of the original.

[John Dolva]

Jack, what's that images number please?

[Craig Lamson]

Lots of people here do not understand or misrepresent what computer enhancement consists of.

OF COURSE it alters images. (some have accused us of altering images)

That is part of the process. The computer operator has little control over the result, except to

tell the computer what to look for. The computer does the rest.

Some of the simpler controls are changing contrast, sharpness, and brightness. But the most

revealing control is ADDING OR SUBTRACTING RED-GREEN-BLUE hues and tones from an image

(even bw images). This brings about varying combinations of images which may be studied

by the operator. Subtraction of color causes A MOTTLED APPEARANCE in a genuine photo. If the

photo has a retouched area, the computer will reveal it to be different than the genuine areas.

Here is such an example. The photograph has a mottled appearance (red arrow) where the

unretouched area exists. But WHERE THE SOLID BLUE UNMOTTLED AREA APPEARS, IT CLEARLY

IS RETOUCHED...because the blue area shows NO MOTTLING. Before people comment on such

things, they should know what they are talking about.

Jack

PS...the first image is the correct one. I posted the other one without saving a change, and

cannot figure how to delete it.

BTW so EVERYONE can understnd exactly HOW you are altering the image found in your latest study, please provide step and step instructions and screen captures. I'm sure you will not have a problem with this given that open and transparent methods are a KEY for work such as yours to be competently judged. A refusal would not speak kindly on you or your work.

Edited September 17, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Dave Greer]

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 ..

There are many similar examples across the Apollo surface photography. I showed you 5 in this one pan.

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.

Only if the lenses were always coated in dust throughout the entire duration of each EVA. They cleaned the cameras at the end of each EVA, and also had a brush for dusting lenses during EVAs (there is video footage on the ALSJ of them dusting the TV lens, for example).

SCOTT: I think the camera would be better off if we’d protect it a little bit better. We used the lens brush

on the cameras, and they were very good.

IRWIN: On the TV also.

SCOTT: On the TV also. The lens brush is really a good brush. It cleaned it off very well. The dust brush,

to clean off the suits seemed to work pretty good. It got the gross dirt off. It didn’t get everything. I guess

it also worked quite well on the LRV and the LCRU mirrors – cleaned them off pretty well.

Source

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

You may call them lame attempts, but you can't offer any evidence why those explanations are false. If Jack hadn't posted his latest study, you'd still be thinking the scanner noise was stars, and accusing everyone else of offering "lame excuses".

[John Dolva]

I'm curious about whether the lens dust brush caused an opposite clectrostatic charge to that of the dust. Or was the dusting neutral?

[Dave Greer]

Here is such an example. The photograph has a mottled appearance (red arrow) where the

unretouched area exists. But WHERE THE SOLID BLUE UNMOTTLED AREA APPEARS, IT CLEARLY

IS RETOUCHED...because the blue area shows NO MOTTLING. Before people comment on such

things, they should know what they are talking about.

Jack

PS...the first image is the correct one. I posted the other one without saving a change, and

cannot figure how to delete it.

Jack

I'm not sure what you proved here, other than the sky was blacked out of this version of the image to remove scanner noise?

[Craig Lamson]

It should be noted that dust on the lens becomes more visable when it is being struck by the sun. It is still visable at other times as well, just not as pronounced.

[Craig Lamson]

I'm curious about whether the lens dust brush caused an opposite clectrostatic charge to that of the dust. Or was the dusting neutral?

We use canned air blown over a nylon bristle brush to add a charge to clean dust from digital sensors buried deep inside the mirrorbox of modern DSLR cameras.

Works like a charm.

Edited September 17, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Here is such an example. The photograph has a mottled appearance (red arrow) where the

unretouched area exists. But WHERE THE SOLID BLUE UNMOTTLED AREA APPEARS, IT CLEARLY

IS RETOUCHED...because the blue area shows NO MOTTLING. Before people comment on such

things, they should know what they are talking about.

Jack

PS...the first image is the correct one. I posted the other one without saving a change, and

cannot figure how to delete it.

Jack

I'm not sure what you proved here, other than the sky was blacked out of this version of the image to remove scanner noise?

In my recent testing I'm finding that it might not even be blacked out, unless you call adjusting the levels (or curves) of an image blacking out. My tests are showing it is nothing more than jpg compression.

I really want to test Whites process, which is why I have asked him to supply the details.