Jack's New Article At Aulis.com - Complete Bunk

[Evan Burton]

It's a bugger of a name to spell!

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Just for the record I personally belive we went to the moon as

per the official record. But just to play devils advocate, is it possible

that for some reason the visual record has been altered-tampered

with. This is by no means my chosen field,but those images look

razor sharpe. What clinches the moon landings for me is the Soviet

responce, i know all the Apollo flights were tracked by Moscow. If

the Soviets had suspected any hoaxing they would have shouted the

house down.

[Evan Burton]

Just for the record I personally belive we went to the moon as per the official record. But just to play devils advocate, is it possible that for some reason the visual record has been altered-tampered with. This is by no means my chosen field,but those images look razor sharpe. What clinches the moon landings for me is the Soviet responce, i know all the Apollo flights were tracked by Moscow. If the Soviets had suspected any hoaxing they would have shouted the house down.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Stephen,

There are many images that can LOOK wrong if you don't research the particulars, understand the sometimes counterintuitive nature of the lunar surface, or actually see that images do strange things.

Please continue to look impartially on the material here. Sometimes NASA may have 'cleaned up' images a little for public release (i.e correcting a horizon when it was taken at an angle), but you have to read through ALL the material to ensure you are getting the best data you can, and then make up your own mind about what happened.

Please do not hesitate to question anything that you feel is incorrect or does not make sense to you.

[John Månestjärna]

is it possible that for some reason the visual record has been altered-tampered with.

Depends how you define altered/tampered. If cropped, resized and/or rotated is altered/tampered, then yes. But as in edited to show something else, no. Not by NASA, and if so they would not be posted as official images. There would be a disclaimer, something "hoax believers" love to remove, and claim NASA posted as real, but then give no link to where they got the image from. So basically they could have altered the image themselves.

You have to remember these are image scans. There are some high resolution scans (jpg files that are several megabytes in size), but mostly what we see are medium resolution scans.

LPI has a complete collection of all images taken on the landing missions.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Evan

Thanks for your reply, As I siad I have no problems with the

official record. & I don't have enough knowledge of film/ video

to make any sort of contribution to this debate. Just enjoying

you experts having at it. But rest assured ,I will always ask

questions about things that dont look right. isnt that how we

learn? anyway thanks again.

[Craig Lamson]

Evan

Thanks for your reply, As I siad I have no problems with the

official record. & I don't have enough knowledge of film/ video

to make any sort of contribution to this debate. Just enjoying

you experts having at it. But rest assured ,I will always ask

questions about things that dont look right. isnt that how we

learn? anyway thanks again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you look at the photographic record as a whole you will find a great many images that suffer from poor focus.

That being said, the lens was a great one.

Depth of focus is controlled by three things, the point of focus as set on the lens, the f-stop used, and the focal length of the lens. The closer you focus, the less DOF you have, the less f-stop you use the less DOF, the longer the focal the less DOF.

So lets look at how this applies to Apollo. The basic Lunar camera was fitted with a 60mm lens, which is a moderate wide angle lens. For everything other than shade pictures the f-stop was in the f11 to f16 range. So we have a shorter lens and a high f-stop which will produce a fairly large DOF.

Tha astronauts used the zone focusing method to focus their photos. This means they selected a focus point on the lens (it has a scale and pointer to allow for this) and took their pictures.

I have a Hasselblad lens right here to give you some example of the DOF at various focus points. My lens is a 50mm which is slightly shorter than the 60mm used on the moon so my figures will give a slight increase in the DOF of the moon lens.

Lets use the f-stop that gives the greatest DOF for this example which is f-16

If we set our focus point at 30", the DOF will give us a photograph with an infocus area from 26" to 36"

If we set our point of focus at 48", the DOF will give us a photograph with an in focus area from 36" to 6 feet.

If we set our point of focus at at 10 feet the DOF will give us a photograph with an in focus area from 5 feet to infinity.

So with a 50mm lens on a Hasselblad in bright sunlight we only need three preset focus points to give us sharp images from 26" to infinity.

Thats how it was done on the moon, and its still done here on earth everyday by photographers.

Edited April 1, 2005 by Craig Lamson

[Pat Speer]

Craig and John, I guess Jack White posting about Apollo is for you what Gerald Posner posting about JFK would be for me...Open Season. There's wrong and then there's offensively wrong. It seems you find Jack offensively wrong. While I grew up watching the moon shots and never once questioned them, when one considers the amount of outright lies we were told about communism, Vietnam and the JFK assassination it makes perfect sense to question Apollo as well.

That said, you guys have done a good job of handling Jack's attempts to prove a hoax. Just take it easy on the guy.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Evan

Thanks for your reply, As I siad I have no problems with the

official record. & I don't have enough knowledge of film/ video

to make any sort of contribution to this debate. Just enjoying

you experts having at it. But rest assured ,I will always ask

questions about things that dont look right. isnt that how we

learn? anyway thanks again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you look at the photographic record as a whole you will find a great many images that suffer from poor focus.

That being said, the lens was a great one.

Depth of focus is controlled by three things, the point of focus as set on the lens, the f-stop used, and the focal length of the lens. The closer you focus, the less DOF you have, the less f-stop you use the less DOF, the longer the focal the less DOF.

So lets look at how this applies to Apollo. The basic Lunar camera was fitted with a 60mm lens, which is a moderate wide angle lens. For everything other than shade pictures the f-stop was in the f11 to f16 range. So we have a shorter lens and a high f-stop which will produce a fairly large DOF.

Tha astronauts used the zone focusing method to focus their photos. This means they selected a focus point on the lens (it has a scale and pointer to allow for this) and took their pictures.

I have a Hasselblad lens right here to give you some example of the DOF at various focus points. My lens is a 50mm which is slightly shorter than the 60mm used on the moon so my figures will give a slight increase in the DOF of the moon lens.

Lets use the f-stop that gives the greatest DOF for this example which is f-16

If we set our focus point at 30", the DOF will give us a photograph with an infocus area from 26" to 36"

If we set our point of focus at 48", the DOF will give us a photograph with an in focus area from 36" to 6 feet.

If we set our point of focus at at 10 feet the DOF will give us a photograph with an in focus area from 5 feet to infinity.

So with a 50mm lens on a Hasselblad in bright sunlight we only need three preset focus points to give us sharp images from 26" to infinity.

Thats how it was done on the moon, and its still done here on earth everyday by photographers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Craig

Thanks for that. The really amazing thing is that I understood it.