Jump to content
The Education Forum

Image Compositing Used to Fake Apollo Photos


Recommended Posts

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).

A reasonable question. Here is the reasonable answer.

According to all I have read about the Hasselblad Apollo cameras, they had a clear glass plate between the lens

and the film. I think it was called a Rousseau plate or something like that (immaterial). The clear glass allowed

the image photographed to pass through it with no loss in quality. The light passed through when the shutter

was operated to take a photo. It passed through ONLY ONCE (ONCE ONLY) when the shutter was snapped.

Etched into the glass plate, however was a series of small black+ marks evenly spaced over its surface, with a

larger central + mark. These were variously called fidicials, reticules, reticles or crosshairs. They were placed there

for photogrammetric purposes. Photogrammetry is a fancy word for taking measurements on a photograph.

When the light came through the shutter when it was opened the ONE TIME it was opened for each photo,

the BLACK CROSSHAIRS BLOCKED THE LIGHT FROM REACHING THE FILM BEYOND IT! On b/w film, this produced

a CLEAR area on the film, which printed as BLACK +s. On color film, this blocked light, so nothing was exposed,

leaving the color film with BLACK + marks.

Now if you understand from this explanation how the + marks got onto the film, then you have to understand

that SINCE THE LIGHT CAME THROUGH THE LENS AND THE GLASS PLATE ONLY ONCE, IT COULD CAST ONLY

A SINGLE SHADOW (+) ON THE FILM WHERE EACH CROSSHAIR WAS ETCHED IN THE GLASS.

Since each reticle cross could have only ONE SHADOW, it CANNOT have TWO SHADOWS. Therefore anyone

who says otherwise is either uninformed, practicing disinformation, or lying.

It is quite elementary and simple to understand.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 177
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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?

Nonsense. The truth cannot be libelous. You are uninformed.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now if you understand from this explanation how the + marks got onto the film, then you have to understand

that SINCE THE LIGHT CAME THROUGH THE LENS AND THE GLASS PLATE ONLY ONCE, IT COULD CAST ONLY

A SINGLE SHADOW (+) ON THE FILM WHERE EACH CROSSHAIR WAS ETCHED IN THE GLASS.

Unless you happen to point the camera at a bright enough light source (the sun) that there are internal reflections within the camera (lens flare). Then there will be light passing by the fiducial marks from another angle, casting a second shadow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nonsense. The truth cannot be libelous. You are uninformed.

Jack

But, as always, you don't provide any proof that he is lying, that what you are saying is truth. This is typical behaviour from you: you call people names but don't offer any proof as to why that name is apt or justified.

IF you can PROVE what Mr Pettersson is wrong AND PROVE that he is knowingly stating untruths, then it would be justified.... but you have failed to do that.

(I also notice another of your standard tactics: if someone disagrees with you, they are "uninformed", etc)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now if you understand from this explanation how the + marks got onto the film, then you have to understand

that SINCE THE LIGHT CAME THROUGH THE LENS AND THE GLASS PLATE ONLY ONCE, IT COULD CAST ONLY

A SINGLE SHADOW (+) ON THE FILM WHERE EACH CROSSHAIR WAS ETCHED IN THE GLASS.

Unless you happen to point the camera at a bright enough light source (the sun) that there are internal reflections within the camera (lens flare). Then there will be light passing by the fiducial marks from another angle, casting a second shadow.

Insides of cameras are dense black, which does not cast such light. Such diffuse light would ruin the image, and would not be sharp enough to cast an image.

There is no proof to back such an absurd statement.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nonsense. The truth cannot be libelous. You are uninformed.

Jack

But, as always, you don't provide any proof that he is lying, that what you are saying is truth. This is typical behaviour from you: you call people names but don't offer any proof as to why that name is apt or justified.

IF you can PROVE what Mr Pettersson is wrong AND PROVE that he is knowingly stating untruths, then it would be justified.... but you have failed to do that.

(I also notice another of your standard tactics: if someone disagrees with you, they are "uninformed", etc)

I provided an undeniable explanation of the reticle grid. ANYONE who denies it is misinformed or lying. You choose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now if you understand from this explanation how the + marks got onto the film, then you have to understand

that SINCE THE LIGHT CAME THROUGH THE LENS AND THE GLASS PLATE ONLY ONCE, IT COULD CAST ONLY

A SINGLE SHADOW (+) ON THE FILM WHERE EACH CROSSHAIR WAS ETCHED IN THE GLASS.

Unless you happen to point the camera at a bright enough light source (the sun) that there are internal reflections within the camera (lens flare). Then there will be light passing by the fiducial marks from another angle, casting a second shadow.

Insides of cameras are dense black, which does not cast such light. Such diffuse light would ruin the image, and would not be sharp enough to cast an image.

There is no proof to back such an absurd statement.

Jack

Uh, you wanna rethink that Jack? Clearly you don't understnad the process of creating lens flares.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nonsense. The truth cannot be libelous. You are uninformed.

Jack

But, as always, you don't provide any proof that he is lying, that what you are saying is truth. This is typical behaviour from you: you call people names but don't offer any proof as to why that name is apt or justified.

IF you can PROVE what Mr Pettersson is wrong AND PROVE that he is knowingly stating untruths, then it would be justified.... but you have failed to do that.

(I also notice another of your standard tactics: if someone disagrees with you, they are "uninformed", etc)

I provided an undeniable explanation of the reticle grid. ANYONE who denies it is misinformed or lying. You choose.

No you MIGHT be able to prove it IF you can show us how the lighting was set up to create your so called shadow.

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).

A reasonable question. Here is the reasonable answer.

According to all I have read about the Hasselblad Apollo cameras, they had a clear glass plate between the lens

and the film. I think it was called a Rousseau plate or something like that (immaterial). The clear glass allowed

the image photographed to pass through it with no loss in quality. The light passed through when the shutter

was operated to take a photo. It passed through ONLY ONCE (ONCE ONLY) when the shutter was snapped.

Etched into the glass plate, however was a series of small black+ marks evenly spaced over its surface, with a

larger central + mark. These were variously called fidicials, reticules, reticles or crosshairs. They were placed there

for photogrammetric purposes. Photogrammetry is a fancy word for taking measurements on a photograph.

When the light came through the shutter when it was opened the ONE TIME it was opened for each photo,

the BLACK CROSSHAIRS BLOCKED THE LIGHT FROM REACHING THE FILM BEYOND IT! On b/w film, this produced

a CLEAR area on the film, which printed as BLACK +s. On color film, this blocked light, so nothing was exposed,

leaving the color film with BLACK + marks.

Now if you understand from this explanation how the + marks got onto the film, then you have to understand

that SINCE THE LIGHT CAME THROUGH THE LENS AND THE GLASS PLATE ONLY ONCE, IT COULD CAST ONLY

A SINGLE SHADOW (+) ON THE FILM WHERE EACH CROSSHAIR WAS ETCHED IN THE GLASS.

Since each reticle cross could have only ONE SHADOW, it CANNOT have TWO SHADOWS. Therefore anyone

who says otherwise is either uninformed, practicing disinformation, or lying.

It is quite elementary and simple to understand.

Jack

I understand what you're saying. What I'm trying to get you to explain is, why is the existence of these shadow marks proof that the images must have been taken on Earth, rather than the moon?

Secondly, on a slightly different issue, take a closer look at the image you were investigating - AS14-66-9304

Pay particular attention to the four reticles surrounding the very bright light-source in the top right of the image. Can you explain why each of these has a shadow, which when tracing a straight line through the corresponding reticle, intersects at the light-source? Can you also explain why the displacement of the shadow from its reticle is directly proportionate to the distance of the reticle to the centre of the light-source? This seems to confirm the theory that the shadow is formed by some kind of internal reflection

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?

Nonsense. The truth cannot be libelous. You are uninformed.

Jack

Really? Please enlighten me! You've called someone, an expert in his field, a xxxx, yet not offered one shred of real proof of that claim, other than your bald statement. Please, show us your proof he is lying!

And while you're at that, there's still the outstanding proofs regarding engines, power outputs and craters from posts #40 and #155, this thread, to regale us with. Ample time has been given for a reply.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Internal reflections do not cast single source shadows. They add exposure to the film, degrading the image.

Try again.

Jack

Really? So what does a reflection of a glass plate with crosshairs etched on it do when reflected off of the rear element of a lens thats only a very short distance from the film plane?? And its really quite interesting, don't you think, that this internal reflection between two glass elements added exposure to the image and degraded it?

BTW, exactly HOW did they light that copy setup you say produced the so called shadows with two light sources that only cast a single shadow on each side? Inquiring minds really what to know if you actually know your stuff....or are you just waving your hands?

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...