Jump to content
The Education Forum

Image Compositing Used to Fake Apollo Photos


Recommended Posts

Of course, the ever circular argument that cannot be refuted : everyting is faked. Is there anything that does exist, Jack?

in the beginning...

http://www.hasselbla...-beginning.aspx

edit typo

Edited by John Dolva
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 177
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

So you deny any evidence that refutes your beliefs, regardless of their authenticity. Is that rational?

I don't need to say any more. You discredit yourself every time you open your mouth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another point I fail to understand is, why do the fiducial shadows prove that the photos were shot on Earth? Jack? Anyone?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Your "rebuttals" are usualy much more detailed than that.

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

You made no attempt to address the evidence, so there was nothing to rebut.

I provided an image that showed many similarities with the Apollo image in terms of lens flare effects. Can you or Jack or anyone else demonstrate why the lens falre shown in the Apollo image cannot possibly be lens falre, or some other mundane artefct, when we see such things in other images?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve declared:

So tell me Duane? Do you drive your car into your 15ft garage at 150M.P.H?

Neither did they.

How do you explain how a rocket exhaust behaves in a vacuum, as opposed to the "constrained cylinder of flame" in an atmosphere?

In the frictionless setting of the vacuum of space, the force (inertia) which pushes the rocket would be even stronger than on earth. Following

Newton then, it figures that this force (whether in a vacuum or not), would be ejected from the rocket and not stop UNTIL IT HITS SOMETHING.

If the first thing the force encounters is "moondust", according to Newton, it would be scattered in all directions.

So tell us, Steve...what WAS the landing speed, and how did the LM pilot see the landing area through the big cloud of Newton dust? You do

understand, don't you, how a rocket propels a craft. Do you understand the principle of equal and opposite reaction? Do you understand

that an object or force in motion will continue in motion until it encounters resistance?

Jack

Stronger? NO! Exactly the same. It just wouldn't have any drag and a much lower gravity well impeding it. Therefore, they could run the throttle at a lower setting for the same effect - IF it had ever been designed to be used on Earth and in an atmosphere. Which it wasn't, and never did.

Where did you study your physics? You should go back and demand a refund of your fees. :lol: Not stop? The exhaust plume wouldn't keep going in one direction after a very short distance, like you see from rocket engines in an atmosphere. There's nothing to stop it diffusing apart and spreading out. Scattering a light layer of dust at a very low velocity wouldn't push said dust very far, especially in a vacuum where there's nothing to support it, or prevent it from dropping straight back to the surface.

I'd love to see your calculations that disprove this. All of them, not just the result. Let's see your math.

Please to remember that there was only a slight layer of dust over the hard rock they landed on, and not metres-deep layers as they were initially worried about (why the ladder had a high bottom rung - they planned for the lander to sink a few feet, although it never happened).

I'll give you a start :

Descent Propulsion System thrust: 10,125 pounds-force (45,040 N), throttle-able between 10% and 60% of full thrust. Assume they were indeed at 10%, and not 60% or the full 100%.

Descent Propulsion System specific impulse: 311 sec (3,050 N-sec/kg).

Descent Propulsion System delta-V: 8,100 feet per second (2,500 m/s).

LEM Mass including fuel: 22,783 pounds (10,334 kg).

Assume a Lunar gravity of 1.635m/s/s (Earth g (9.812m/s/s) divided by 6).

There is no air resistance on the moon.

That should be enough for you to get a half-way accurate, ball-park answer.

Show us your math.

Any chance of an answer, Jack? Waiting for your math proof that an engine of such output should leave a crater in rock at 10% throttle and very low speed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
  • 2 months later...

Some updated information on the CHAPEL BELL experiments: declassified documents show that it was tracking of the Saturn stages (I, IB and V) by over the horizon radar (OTHR). It was used to help design and calibrate the system, with radar tracks of known size, velocity and trajectory. The OTHR system would be used to help detect Soviet missile / spacecraft launches and allow the US to determine size / etc from the return.

http://www.private-files.com/documents/declassified/chapel_bell/chapel_bell_abstract.pdf

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=AD0373294

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another point I fail to understand is, why do the fiducial shadows prove that the photos were shot on Earth? Jack? Anyone?

BECAUSE the crosshairs cast shadows, they CANNOT be in the camera film plane. They have to be on an overlay

over a photocopy print.

IF in the camera, the crosshairs ARE THE SHADOWS (keeping light from the film) and cannot cast an ADDITIONAL shadow.

Jack

post-667-019530300 1294637164_thumb.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack, you ignore the fact that a photographic expert from Hasselblad has told you that you are wrong.

All you are doing is trying to smear them, trying to cast aspersions upon the person whilst you have not explained how he is wrong.

If you cannot provide scientific evidence as to why you are right and Mr Pettersson is wrong, then why should we believe you?

Mr Pettersson is the Product Manager and optics expert at Hasselblad. He is know world-wide for his expertise in photography, in particular Hasselblad cameras, and is the primary inventor in at least three photographic patents. His expertise and qualifications are known.

Please prove how he is wrong.

Edited by Evan Burton
Expanded reply
Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack, you ignore the fact that a photographic expert from Hasselblad has told you that you are wrong.

All you are doing is trying to smear them, trying to cast aspersions upon the person whilst you have not explained how he is wrong.

If you cannot provide scientific evidence as to why you are right and Mr Pettersson is wrong, then why should we believe you?

Mr Pettersson is the Product Manager and optics expert at Hasselblad. He is know world-wide for his expertise in photography, in particular Hasselblad cameras, and is the primary inventor in at least three photographic patents. His expertise and qualifications are known.

Please prove how he is wrong.

He lies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another point I fail to understand is, why do the fiducial shadows prove that the photos were shot on Earth? Jack? Anyone?

BECAUSE the crosshairs cast shadows, they CANNOT be in the camera film plane. They have to be on an overlay

over a photocopy print.

IF in the camera, the crosshairs ARE THE SHADOWS (keeping light from the film) and cannot cast an ADDITIONAL shadow.

Jack

You missed my point. I'll try to be clearer.

For argument's sake, let's assume you're right about the crosshairs not being in the camera. How does the overlay of cross-hairs on the images (yet somehow missing out the brighter/over-exposed areas of white) prove that the photos must have been taken on Earth? Why can't they have been taken on the moon, and the cross-hairs added later? (They weren't added later, I'm just playing Devil's advocate).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack, you ignore the fact that a photographic expert from Hasselblad has told you that you are wrong.

All you are doing is trying to smear them, trying to cast aspersions upon the person whilst you have not explained how he is wrong.

If you cannot provide scientific evidence as to why you are right and Mr Pettersson is wrong, then why should we believe you?

Mr Pettersson is the Product Manager and optics expert at Hasselblad. He is know world-wide for his expertise in photography, in particular Hasselblad cameras, and is the primary inventor in at least three photographic patents. His expertise and qualifications are known.

Please prove how he is wrong.

He lies.

That's getting very close to being libellous. Unless you have proof?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another point I fail to understand is, why do the fiducial shadows prove that the photos were shot on Earth? Jack? Anyone?

BECAUSE the crosshairs cast shadows, they CANNOT be in the camera film plane. They have to be on an overlay

over a photocopy print.

IF in the camera, the crosshairs ARE THE SHADOWS (keeping light from the film) and cannot cast an ADDITIONAL shadow.

Jack

So Jack, please point out HOW THE COPY WAS LIT to produce these so called "overlay shadows". IF you can't show us HOW it was done, you lose. This is NOT rockert science. It's the lighitng setup for a simple copy job. Show us what kind of setup was required to produce what you say are "shadows" from an overlay.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...