(Merged) Fetzer / Burton Apollo Hoax debate thread

[Dave Greer]

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

Don't know the answer to that one John, maybe someone else can help out.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Part I: Jack White's Apollo Photo Studies

Argument 3: The Anomalous Visor Reflections

Many photos of astronauts alleged to have been

taken on the moon have anomalous reflections in

the visors of astronauts' helmets, some of which

offer indications of photo fakery. Jack and I are in

the process of reviewing those most illuminating

in relation to their importance as proof of fraud.

[Jack White]

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?

Are you saying that I have proved that the photo has the sky blacked out and therefore is not genuine? Why was the SKY

blacked out because of "scanner noise" when scanner noise IS NOT PRESENT IN THE REST OF THE PHOTO? What does

the fake black sky hide? Other black areas of the photo are not blacked in. WHY IS ONLY THE SKY BLACKED IN?

By conceding the sky has been blacked in, you are admitting the photo is NOT GENUINE!

Jack

[Jack White]

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".

Please show us examples of SCANNER NOISE in good parts of the photo. Why is there not scanner noise over the entire photo

instead of just the sky?

Please show us examples of LENS DUST which ruins good parts of the photo, not just the sky. Why is the dust so selective that

it needs retouching in the sky, but not the rest of the photo?

Lens dust and scanner noise are LAME EXCUSES, not shown by ANY studies.

Jack

Edited September 16, 2010 by Jack White

[Jack White]

Jack, what's that images number please?

The FULL photo has been posted in this thread several times WITH THE FILE NUMBER. Look it up. Live with it.

[Dave Greer]

Are you saying that I have proved that the photo has the sky blacked out and therefore is not genuine?

No. Proving the sky was blacked out does not mean that the ORIGINAL image was not genuine, and that is all that we're interested in: the ORIGINAL images.

Why was the SKY blacked out because of "scanner noise" when scanner noise IS NOT PRESENT IN THE REST OF THE PHOTO? What does

the fake black sky hide? Other black areas of the photo are not blacked in. WHY IS ONLY THE SKY BLACKED IN?

Scanner noise tends to be more apparent in large areas of black, as you showed in your study of AS15-85-11425.

Blacking the sky hides scanner noise which is present in most scans of images to a greater or lesser degree. You can see it in every high-res scan of Apollo images available on the Gateway to Astronaut Photograph website - the images are taken from scans of the actual films rolls, and haven't had any processing applied to them.

Check out this website that discusses scanner noise.

Such artefacts become an inseparable part of the image in all scans. With regular daylight material these artefacts should never normally become visible, however they have potential to become visible when stretching contrast and doing other enhancement work to thin astro negatives. The more that an image needs to be enhanced, the more that scanner artefacts become visible.

By conceding the sky has been blacked in, you are admitting the photo is NOT GENUINE!

Jack

I'm doing no such thing, please don't put words into my mouth.

[John Dolva]

It's ok, Jack, don't worry about it.

edit typo

Edited September 17, 2010 by John Dolva

[Duane Daman]

"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."

No worries mate .. I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong.. I got that lens info completely backwards.

My dyslexia often prevents me from reading certain information correctly, especially when the print is small and I'm rushed for time.

[Evan Burton]

No problems Duane; dyslexia can really make life difficult for you. Lesson learnt though - when people dispute your work, recheck your claims... slowly and carefully. Even then, you are probably going to miss something if it involves a large amount of text. One of my responsibilities is for a large manual that details procedures for aircraft operating with ships. Despite have done a major review of it over the last couple of years, and having three seperate people proof read and accuracy check, I am still finding spelling or syntax errors, etc, that have been in the publication for many years!

[Evan Burton]

I look forward to seeing them. In the interest of the non-Apollo experts, could we please have image numbers this time?

Thank you.

Part I: Jack White's Apollo Photo Studies

Argument 3: The Anomalous Visor Reflections

Many photos of astronauts alleged to have been

taken on the moon have anomalous reflections in

the visors of astronauts' helmets, some of which

offer indications of photo fakery. Jack and I are in

the process of reviewing those most illuminating

in relation to their importance as proof of fraud.

[John Dolva]

When/if the debate continues: from other topic:

Until agreement on which is best pic I'd like to make this observation. In this image the RGB components have been separated. I don't know how far the earths atmosphere in all layers extend, and the blur factor is important particularly over such a vast distance with a camera. The continents and oceans are not definable. *Red shows least ''diffusion''.

edit typo add*

http://www.pdas.com/atmthick.html

''If you demand that the particle count per cubic meter be indistinguishable from the density of the solar wind in the vicinity of the earth's orbit, you have to go to something like 1000 km.'' (atmosphere thickness)

http://geography.abo...lqzdiameter.htm

''The diameter of the earth at the equator is 12,756.32 kilometers''

ie roughly 1 : 12.75, pole to pole roughly 1 : 12.5

Further there is motion blur to consider. The ''corona'' is not even. During the time of exposure, 1/60th of a second, the relative motion of the moon and earth* could account for this. Overall, with error margins considered, as well as color values being something like one would expect, it seems to me the suggested proof cannot be taken as such. Rather, the image as presented seems to be as expected taking all things into account.

*addendum : ''The Moon orbits the Earth at a speed of about 2288 miles per hour (3683 kilometers per hour)'', further, it rotates as fast as it revolves around the earth. (the dark side of the moon)

ie ~ 1km per second

ie : irrelevant as shutter speed is 1/60 seconds. (16 meters during exposure : a miniscule arc.)

So resolution and camera blur are the factors (?)

The following should all balance out.

( M to E distance ) / ( E diameter ) = ( C to O distance ) / ( O size )

M = moon

E = earth

C = camera

O = object with apparent same width as E diameter

The bit that has me stumped is what role the camera lens combination has.(it is a q I've been looking for an answer to for some time, I can't get my thinking straight on it, could someone help, please? Perhaps it's irrelevant, perhaps one can treat it as an eye with a single lens. Does one need to know the camera specs)

It seems to me a useful thing to be clear about as it has applications in photo analysis in general such as locating objects on JFK images.

The following site seems to have pointers to an answer, but I'm not anything but snaphappy with some sense of issues to consider and concepts, terminology are largely beyond me. So I'm posting this to log the info in the hope that some day I'll understand the whole thing.

(The gif is quite interesting)

http://en.wikipedia....8photography%29

''In photography and cinematography, perspective distortion is a warping or transformation of an object and its surrounding area that differs significantly from what the object would look like with a normal focal length, due to the relative scale of nearby and distant features. Perspective distortion is determined by the relative distances at which the image is captured and viewed, and is due to the angle of view of the image (as captured) being either wider or narrower than the angle of view at which the image is viewed, hence the apparent relative distances differing from what is expected.

Perspective distortion takes two forms: extension distortion (?) and compression distortion, also called wide-angle distortion and telephoto distortion, due to these corresponding to capturing a given field size with a wide-angle lens (hence from closer than with a normal lens) or capturing a given field size with a telephoto lens (hence from further than with a normal lens) – and in both cases then viewing from a normal distance.

In extension distortion, which can be seen in images shot from close using a wide angle of view, an object close to the lens appears abnormally large relative to more distant objects, and distant objects appear abnormally small and hence more distant – distances are extended. In compression distortion, which can be seen in distant shots with a narrow angle of view, distant objects look approximately the same size – closer objects are abnormally small, and more distant objects are abnormally large, and hence the viewer cannot discern relative distances between distant objects – distances are compressed.

Note that perspective distortion is caused by distance, not by the lens (?) per se – two shots of the same scene from the same distance will exhibit identical perspective distortion, regardless of lens used. However, since wide-angle lenses have a wider field of view, they are generally used from closer, while telephoto lenses have a narrower field of view and are generally used from further away. For example, if standing at a distance so that a normal lens captures someone's face, a shot with a wide-angle lens or telephoto lens from the same distance will have exactly the same perspective on the face, though the wide-angle lens may fit the entire body into the shot, while the telephoto lens captures only the nose. However, crops of these three images with the same coverage will yield the same perspective distortion – the nose will look the same in all three. Conversely, if all three lenses are used from distances such that the face fills the field, the wide-angle will be used from closer, making the nose relatively larger, and the telephoto will be used from further, making the nose relatively smaller.

Outside of photography, expansion distortion is most familiar in side-view mirrors (see "objects in mirror are closer than they appear") and peepholes, though these often use a fisheye lens, exhibiting different distortion. Compression distortion is most familiar in looking through binoculars or telescopes, as in telescopic sights.''

(?) adds

edit formatting

More of the same, here from the ''theatre of noise''

http://www.theatreof...r-size-and.html

''Perspective distortion is only influenced by how far you are from your subject. It has nothing directly to do with the lens or camera. It has nothing to do with the focal length and nothing to do with the size of the sensor or film you are using. However, if you are using a wide-angle lens you will need to be closer to fill the frame with your subject. This will lead to extension distortion, which is why it is also commonly called wide-angle distortion. And likewise you need to stand back when using a telephoto lens, so you will be able to capture more than a nostril. And this leads to compression distortion, AKA telephoto distortion.''

edit formatting

[John Dolva]

When/if the debate continues: from other topic:

Until agreement on which is best pic I'd like to make this observation. In this image the RGB components have been separated. I don't know how far the earths atmosphere in all layers extend, and the blur factor is important particularly over such a vast distance with a camera. The continents and oceans are not definable. *Red shows least ''diffusion''.

edit typo add*

http://www.pdas.com/atmthick.html

''If you demand that the particle count per cubic meter be indistinguishable from the density of the solar wind in the vicinity of the earth's orbit, you have to go to something like 1000 km.'' (atmosphere thickness)

http://geography.abo...lqzdiameter.htm

''The diameter of the earth at the equator is 12,756.32 kilometers''

ie roughly 1 : 12.75, pole to pole roughly 1 : 12.5

Further there is motion blur to consider. The ''corona'' is not even. During the time of exposure, 1/60th of a second, the relative motion of the moon and earth* could account for this. Overall, with error margins considered, as well as color values being something like one would expect, it seems to me the suggested proof cannot be taken as such. Rather, the image as presented seems to be as expected taking all things into account.

*addendum : ''The Moon orbits the Earth at a speed of about 2288 miles per hour (3683 kilometers per hour)'', further, it rotates as fast as it revolves around the earth. (the dark side of the moon)

ie ~ 1km per second

ie : irrelevant as shutter speed is 1/60 seconds. (16 meters during exposure : a miniscule arc.)

So resolution and camera blur are the factors (?)

The following should all balance out.

( M to E distance ) / ( E diameter ) = ( C to O distance ) / ( O size )

M = moon

E = earth

C = camera

O = object with apparent same width as E diameter

The bit that has me stumped is what role the camera lens combination has.(it is a q I've been looking for an answer to for some time, I can't get my thinking straight on it, could someone help, please? Perhaps it's irrelevant, perhaps one can treat it as an eye with a single lens. Does one need to know the camera specs)

It seems to me a useful thing to be clear about as it has applications in photo analysis in general such as locating objects on JFK images.

The following site seems to have pointers to an answer, but I'm not anything but snaphappy with some sense of issues to consider and concepts, terminology are largely beyond me. So I'm posting this to log the info in the hope that some day I'll understand the whole thing.

(The gif is quite interesting)

http://en.wikipedia....8photography%29

''In photography and cinematography, perspective distortion is a warping or transformation of an object and its surrounding area that differs significantly from what the object would look like with a normal focal length, due to the relative scale of nearby and distant features. Perspective distortion is determined by the relative distances at which the image is captured and viewed, and is due to the angle of view of the image (as captured) being either wider or narrower than the angle of view at which the image is viewed, hence the apparent relative distances differing from what is expected.

Perspective distortion takes two forms: extension distortion (?) and compression distortion, also called wide-angle distortion and telephoto distortion, due to these corresponding to capturing a given field size with a wide-angle lens (hence from closer than with a normal lens) or capturing a given field size with a telephoto lens (hence from further than with a normal lens) – and in both cases then viewing from a normal distance.

In extension distortion, which can be seen in images shot from close using a wide angle of view, an object close to the lens appears abnormally large relative to more distant objects, and distant objects appear abnormally small and hence more distant – distances are extended. In compression distortion, which can be seen in distant shots with a narrow angle of view, distant objects look approximately the same size – closer objects are abnormally small, and more distant objects are abnormally large, and hence the viewer cannot discern relative distances between distant objects – distances are compressed.

Note that perspective distortion is caused by distance, not by the lens (?) per se – two shots of the same scene from the same distance will exhibit identical perspective distortion, regardless of lens used. However, since wide-angle lenses have a wider field of view, they are generally used from closer, while telephoto lenses have a narrower field of view and are generally used from further away. For example, if standing at a distance so that a normal lens captures someone's face, a shot with a wide-angle lens or telephoto lens from the same distance will have exactly the same perspective on the face, though the wide-angle lens may fit the entire body into the shot, while the telephoto lens captures only the nose. However, crops of these three images with the same coverage will yield the same perspective distortion – the nose will look the same in all three. Conversely, if all three lenses are used from distances such that the face fills the field, the wide-angle will be used from closer, making the nose relatively larger, and the telephoto will be used from further, making the nose relatively smaller.

Outside of photography, expansion distortion is most familiar in side-view mirrors (see "objects in mirror are closer than they appear") and peepholes, though these often use a fisheye lens, exhibiting different distortion. Compression distortion is most familiar in looking through binoculars or telescopes, as in telescopic sights.''

(?) adds

edit formatting

More of the same, here from the ''theatre of noise''

http://www.theatreof...r-size-and.html

''Perspective distortion is only influenced by how far you are from your subject. It has nothing directly to do with the lens or camera. It has nothing to do with the focal length and nothing to do with the size of the sensor or film you are using. However, if you are using a wide-angle lens you will need to be closer to fill the frame with your subject. This will lead to extension distortion, which is why it is also commonly called wide-angle distortion. And likewise you need to stand back when using a telephoto lens, so you will be able to capture more than a nostril. And this leads to compression distortion, AKA telephoto distortion.''

edit formatting

It would be great to have a photo expert on the forum who can guide a neophyte to deeper understanding of issues. The following SEEMS to me to be relevant once visor reflections become an issue

Christopher Mei, PhD Student:

Central Catadioptric Systems

And

SLAM

http://www-sop.inria.fr/icare/personnel/Christopher.Mei/ChristopherMeiPhDStudentToolbox.html

[Jack White]

Second Fetzer/Burton Debate images, REFLECTIONS IN HELMET VISORS:

NUMBER ONE

[Jack White]

Second Fetzer/Burton Debate images, REFLECTIONS IN HELMET VISORS:

NUMBER TWO

[Jack White]

Second Fetzer/Burton Debate images, REFLECTIONS IN HELMET VISORS:

NUMBER THREE