Image Compositing Used to Fake Apollo Photos

[Duane Daman]

I bet it took only a nano second for Cyborg Kevin to come up with the ole' "lens flare" excuse too.

Talk about ridiculous .. I'm thinkin the team needs some new "debunking" material.

Edited September 24, 2010 by Duane Daman

[Dave Greer]

I found this photo of the Sun colliding into a church tower, and exploding.

Anyone who uses the excuse of "lens flare" is clearly a disinformationist, or a blind, lying fool.

It bears absolutely zero resemblance, in any way, shape or form to this Apollo image.

[John Dolva]

That's way too small to be the sun. I bet it's one of the nuke UFO's attacking a silo built to look like a church.

[Jack White]

Lens flare?

Obviously. Much better scans of that image are available by the way, as usual Jack uses the worst copy he can find.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a14/AS14-66-9304HR.jpg

So what is your point?

Lens flare. What's YOUR point?

What is YOUR point? I used the high res image you supplied. Same result.

You know nothing about lens flare or pointing a camera toward the sun!

You do not know that the Hasselblad Apollo cameras had a PENTAGONAL

LEAF APERTURE, and lens flares were FIVE SIDED, not ROUND. There are

several Apollo examples of Hasselblad lens flares.

And lens flares occur when the light is from the side, not when pointing

the lens directly at the light or sun. Pointing a camera directly at the sun

does NOT produce a ball with a circle around it...IT WASHES OUT THE

ENTIRE EXPOSURE!

Jack

[Kevin M. West]

I bet it took only a nano second for Cyborg Kevin to come up with the ole' "lens flare" excuse too.

Talk about ridiculous .. I'm thinkin the team needs some new "debunking" material.

It's not an excuse, it's a fact. If you want proof it's a lens flare, look no further than the fact that it overlaps everything in the image. If it were a spotlight, it would have to be between the lander and the camera.

More proof? The fiducials within the bright parts of the flare have shadows. This requires light to reflect within the lens and hit the fiducials from a second angle.

More? There are at least 5 visible reflections of the bright spot forming a line passing directly through the center of the image. This is a classic example of a lens flare.

[Duane Daman]

I found this photo of the Sun colliding into a church tower, and exploding.

Anyone who uses the excuse of "lens flare" is clearly a disinformationist, or a blind, lying fool.

It bears absolutely zero resemblance, in any way, shape or form to this Apollo image.

As usual Dave, your NON-COMPARE argument only helped prove the fact that the Apollo "sun" is not the real Sun.

Thanks for posting those photos.

[Dave Greer]

As usual Dave, your NON-COMPARE argument only helped prove the fact that the Apollo "sun" is not the real Sun.

Thanks for posting those photos.

Give 'em enough rope...

[Jack White]

Explain this:

[Duane Daman]

As usual Dave, your NON-COMPARE argument only helped prove the fact that the Apollo "sun" is not the real Sun.

Thanks for posting those photos.

Give 'em enough rope...

Your "rebuttals" are usualy much more detailed than that.

I hope you haven't been taking lessons from your team mate West...

[Kevin M. West]

Explain this:

Since lens flares are caused by internal reflections, the light of the flare doesn't hit the film or fiducal at the same angle as the light coming from outside the lens. So the fiducial leaves a shadow in the flare in a slightly different location than the shadow it leaves in the normal image.

[Evan Burton]

Explain this:

Since lens flares are caused by internal reflections, the light of the flare doesn't hit the film or fiducal at the same angle as the light coming from outside the lens. So the fiducial leaves a shadow in the flare in a slightly different location than the shadow it leaves in the normal image.

Precisely Kevin.

This was confirmed by the good people at Hasselblad themselves. This was conveyed to Jack what - 3 years ago? - but he still ignores it.

[Jack White]

Explain this:

Since lens flares are caused by internal reflections, the light of the flare doesn't hit the film or fiducal at the same angle as the light coming from outside the lens. So the fiducial leaves a shadow in the flare in a slightly different location than the shadow it leaves in the normal image.

HAAAA HAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAA

[Kevin M. West]

Explain this:

Since lens flares are caused by internal reflections, the light of the flare doesn't hit the film or fiducal at the same angle as the light coming from outside the lens. So the fiducial leaves a shadow in the flare in a slightly different location than the shadow it leaves in the normal image.

HAAAA HAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAA

I take it you disagree? Feel free to explain why, if you can.

[Evan Burton]

Explain this:

Since lens flares are caused by internal reflections, the light of the flare doesn't hit the film or fiducal at the same angle as the light coming from outside the lens. So the fiducial leaves a shadow in the flare in a slightly different location than the shadow it leaves in the normal image.

HAAAA HAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAA

Over four and a half years ago, in response to the same claim but regarding an Apollo 14 image, Jack was told the reason:

Hello Mr. Burton,

The effect you can see is caused by interference from the reseau plate. The image of the sun on the film is partly reflected and acts as a secondary strong light source. The reseau plate is a 4 mm thick glass plate and the distance between the surface facing the film and the film itself is around 0.1 mm in outer areas (less in center areas).

The strong light reflected from the film is reflected again from the reseau plate surfaces. Due to glass reflection properties (total reflection at larger incidence angles), the radius of corresponding "halo" is maximum around 7-8 mm. The shadows of the two hair crosses close to the periphery of the halo are caused by two types of reflections from the reseau plate.

The OK looking cross comes from two reflections in the front surface (facing the lens) and one reflection in the rear surface. The final reflex hits the hair cross at a similar angle like ordinary light and therefore the hair cross looks OK.

The skew cross comes from one reflection in the front surface with the light hitting the hair cross coming at an angle not too far from the total reflection angle of around 42 degrees. Outgoing light has a large exit angle (more than 60 degrees probably) making the offset you see in the image. You can also see that the skew line looks to be pointing at the halo center, which indicates where the original light comes from.

Hope that above explanation is understandable. Please come back for possible additional clarification.

Best regards

VICTOR HASSELBLAD AB

Erland Pettersson

Product Manager Camera Systems

Tel. +46 31 102450

Fax. +46 31 135074

Does Jack claim to know more about the camera than the people at Hasselblad?

[Jack White]

The complicit accessories at Hasselblad have motive to falsify their statements about their part in the Apollo program.

Any statements are classified as self-serving.

Jack