Jump to content
The Education Forum

Jack White's Aulis "Apollo Hoax" Investigation - A Rebuttal

Evan Burton

Recommended Posts

No, I didn't think Jack would try to refute this; he knows he can't. It's a double whammy for Jack there; not only is the reason for the effect given, but the method that Jack says produced the effect is actually impossible to do.

Anyway, on with the show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Jack correctly labels the left image as AS12-487135. The right image is labelled as12-GPN-2000-001316. That is technically correct, because that is the file number for that image on a different NASA server. If you have a look at this page, you’ll see that is the number given to it by the Great Images in NASA (GRIN) server; they do correctly identify the image as being AS12-48-7136 though.

That leads us to a small point to note; the image Jack has used is from the GRIN server and may be enhanced because it is like a PR library. I’m not saying it IS enhanced or altered, just that it may be. For research purposes, you should use the scans available from the ALSJ or Kipp Teague’s Project Apollo Image Gallery. They use scans from original sources.

The image Jack showed, however, was the GRIN image so that’s the one we should examine. I’ll use it’s official NASA designation but make it clear when rfering to the GRIN image or the ALSJ source. That being said, the two images are:

AS12-48-7135 and AS12-48-7136.

They were taken right after each other, by Pete Conrad. The astronaut is Al Bean. The GRIN text says that it was Al who took the shots, but they are wrong.

From ALSJ:

134:16:43 Bean: (Chuckling) You got a calibrated eye, huh? (Pause)

[Al's pictures of Pete are AS12-48- 7133, and 7134. Patrick Vantuyne as created a red-blue anaglyph ( 393k.]

134:16:48 Conrad: Trouble with that camera is, if it's not right on the money, it's out of focus.

134:16:52 Bean: Okay.

134:16:54 Conrad: Okay, Houston. I'm jiggling it (as shown in 7134). The Surveyor is firmly planted here; that's no problem. Okay, Al. We're ready to start getting the TV camera.

134:17:03 Bean: Okay.

[After they finish taking each other's pictures, they will remove some Surveyor parts for placement in a vacuum can and, then, the Surveyor's TV camera for return to Earth. The fact that the Surveyor is firmly planted means that it's not likely to start sliding farther into the crater as they work around it.]

134:17:09 Conrad: Now ...

134:17:10 Bean: Hey, Pete, you want to do something for me first?

134:17:11 Conrad: Yes, sir. Okay. I sure will. (Long Pause)

[They are trading places so that Pete can take a picture of Al with the Surveyor.]

134:17:30 Conrad: I'll be darned. (Pause) All soft dirt. (Pause) Okay, (give me) a big smile.

134:17:42 Bean: Okay.

[Pete's pictures of Al are AS12-48- 7135 and 7136.]

Compare the two images and you'll see that Pete moved slightly between shots, thus accounting for the movement of the reticules. Al remained almost perfectly still, so he looks almost exactly the same in the two images.




AS12-48-7136 (from GRIN server, SMALL size)

The difference between the two images has been highlighted excellently in this comparison / composite image created by Data Cable of the Bad Astronomy / Universe Today forum:


Composite created by Data Cable

Take a good, close look at the areas indicated by the red markings. Pay particular attention to the shadow cast by Al's right arm onto Surveyor, and the shadow cast by Surveyor onto Al's leg. This shows the slight movement between the shots.

Also notice how the Surveyor leg is much closer to the bottom of the frame in 7136, then look at the fiducials. They are correctly placed for each frame.

Edited by Evan Burton
Link to comment
Share on other sites


I have to disagree with Bill on this; I believe it is simply a smudge on Conrad's helmet.

The image shown is AS12-48-7071. Here is a crop of the hi-resolution version, showing the area of interest:


Crop of AS12-48-7071 (hi resolution) enlarged to 300% of original size

Now lets have a look at some other shots of Conrad during EVA-2:


Crop of AS12-48-7134 (hi-resolution) enlarged to 500% of original size


Crop of AS12-48-7133 (hi-resolution) enlarged to 500% of original size


Crop of AS12-48-7074 (hi-resolution) enlarged to 500% of original size

The smudge appears in all of them. It's only really noticable when sunlight is stiking the front of Conrad at the right angle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


The image Jack refers to is from the GRIN server:


They use different file ID numbers on their own server, but as the link aboves shows, they always give the original photo ID.

As far as the "overlay lifting" is concerned, we proved Jack was wrong about that on the previous page. Hasselblad have told us that it is a reflection from the reseau plate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Jack says:

"Additionally, a circular halo is not a true photographic result of pointing the camera directly at the sun"

Jack's so-called 'expertise' (or rather the lack of it) becomes apparent when people around the world disagree with Jack.


From http://www.sundog.clara.co.uk/halo/circular.htm


From http://www.robratkowski.com/oddsends/


From http://www.southernskyphoto.com/moon/halo.htm


From http://ppfeyte.free.fr/photometeores/photometeore19.htm


From http://ecf.hq.eso.org/~rfosbury/home/natur...aros/paros.html

They are all obviously "in on it" and have faked these images for the sole purpose of discrediting Jack's work.

Do a google search for "lens flare" or "circular halo", select images, and see what you come up with yourself.

Now, the other point. It can be filled in "so perfectly" because:

1. Light is reflecting off the astronaut's suit and providing additional light; and

2. The original image has probably been "pushed" during development in order to show greater detail.

Light reflecting off suits and the lunar surface is has been previously explained.

This site:


explains the reflected light and other so-called anomolies.

Edited to add:

I forgot the editor's comments. They say:

Editor's Note: Exactly the same conclusion was reached by Bennet and Percy in Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers.

So they have also reached the incorrect conclusion, and are equally displaying their shortcomings in photography.

Edited by Evan Burton
Link to comment
Share on other sites


I also found this colour photo, Bill. Also during EVA-2.


AS12-47-6919 hi-resolution (Cropped, annotated, enlarged to 300% of original size)

I think that's the LM in the background of the visor reflection, so it may actually be part of the LM - but I don't think so. Something for you to consider in any case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Firstly look at a crop of AS14-66-9277 (use hi-res images for more detail):


AS14-66-9277 (taken at GET 114:53:38)(Hi-resolution, cropped)

Now, notice some things on this and the full image:

1. The leg with the ladder on it (the west leg) is within the shadow of the LM.

2. The base of the flag is between the LM shadow and the shadow of the antenna dish. Notice how the base is much closer to the dish shadow than the LM shadow.

3. Notice the antenna dish shadow is much lighter than the LM shadow, because the dish is perferated and lets a lot of light through.

4. We cannot see the antenna dish because it is behind (i.e. north of) the LM.

Now look at a cropped image of AS14-66-9305:


AS14-66-9305 (taken at GET 114:57:20)(hi-resolution, cropped, annotated, reduced to 70% of original size)

Now notice:

1. The west leg (ladder leg) is still within shadow.

2. & 3. The base of the flag is between the LM shadow and the shadow of the dish - much closer to the dish. The shadow of the dish is hard to make out but I have put arrows to help. Look at the hi-res image to confirm this.

4. The antenna dish is now clearly visible because we are now looking at the north LM leg at the right of the dish and flag.

Additionally, have a look at this image from later on the same roll:


AS14-66-9338 (Taken at about GET 136:26)

You can see the shadow of the LM on the left, the flag, and the antenna dish shadow.

The flag has not moved

Even if it had, so what? They moved it. Does Jack mean to say that once placed into the lunar soil, a flag cannot be repositioned? Cannot be moved?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Put simply, what Jack says is NOT correct. Shadows do NOT have to be parallel. See:








Similarly for the editor's comments: Once again, David Percy is incorrect. I need to confirm this, but I believe the Aulis website is actually run by Percy / Bennett. If this is correct, why don't they mention this when refering to their book during Jack's studies? If they do run the website, why do they refer to themselves and their book as though they are totally seperate people? If this information is correct, do they have something to hide?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Firstly, reference to The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal shows us:


114:44:45 Down-Sun of Al holding the flagstaff. A hem at the top of the flag holds it on a horizontal crossbar to keep it from hanging absolutely limp on the airless Moon. The shadow of the S-Band antenna is at the right. Note the raised visor on Al's helmet and, also, the side visors which were these added for this mission. Ed has backed up a little between 9231 and this picture.

At this point Ed passed the camera to Al Shepard. Note that unlike on Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 there are no pictures of the LMP descending the ladder.


114:45:46 Down-Sun portrait of Ed at the U.S. flag.

Now, let's examine the "NO bootprints" claim:


AS14-66-9232 Hi-res (Cropped, annotated)

The arrows point to just some of the bootprints.


AS14-66-9233 Hi-res (Cropped, annotated)

This image is a little out of focus, but you can still see the bootprints made when Shepherd & Mitchell changed places.

Once again, Jack only shows you what he wants you to see, and is yet again wrong. And as always, examine the high resolution images for maximum detail and decide for yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Oh come on!

Firstly, look at the image. The LM hatch (the "west side") is basically facing toward the camera.

Remember what I said earlier? The LM will always try to land 'down-sun' as much as possible. That's so the astronauts do not have the sun in their eyes, and they can use relief shadows to help judge the terrain.

The sun is "behind" the LM, out of frame.

The "dome" is a remanent of lens flare caused by the sun. The bottom section is not visible because the remanent is so faint and the lunar surface bright, so it washes out the flare. The upper portion is visible because it is highlighted against the dark sky.

"...Therefore any image shown in the black skies of the moon MUST REPRESENT REAL OBJECTS, or a DIRECT LIGHT SOURCE itself."

Real objects? Bull. xxxx. Utter bullxxxx. There have been numerous examples of lens (sun) flare previously.

Direct light source? Well, kinda. You are seeing lens flare. See my previous comment - numerous examples.

Additionally - what are you saying now Jack? Are you changing tack, Jack?

Are you saying the images WERE taken on the moon but NASA is trying to hide a massive lunar dome? Maybe left by aliens? Or is it a current construction by the Global Conspiracy of the New World Order?

Just what ARE you trying to say?

Now, let's have a look at the same image (AS15-82-11057) from the Apollo Image Gallery:



That looks like a lens flare to me. You can see that it DOES extend below the horizon (see hi-res image to check for yourself).

Looks to me that Jack's image has been tampered with, altered so the lens flare isn't clear. Who did that? Was it Jack? Aulis? The unnamed Australian researcher? I don't know - but I do know that Jack's work is flawed to such a degree as to be totally unreliable.

Edited by Evan Burton
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Same again.

Ask yourself: are any of the images down-sun?

YES! Only one - AS14-64-9120. And look what Jack has done with it. Can you even SEE the astronaut in that image?

He's just brightend everything so that that it flares out. Don't believe me? Look at the original image.

Look at the shadow of the astronaut in the untampered version - it's all black.

Then look at the "image" Jack has next to it - the shadow is split in two, with massive pixelation going on.

All he has done is mutilated an image with Photoshop or similar until he sees "something".

Once more: do NOT trust the images Jack presents to you; look at the original images and determine for yourself what the truth is!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


The image is the first in film magazine 89/WW. It suffers, like many first and last images, from light leaking in when the film magazine was changed on the lunar surface. Examples of this are shown below.

The "lights" which Jack claims are there are actually bits of the film strip which have been caught on the scan.

Once again, Jack ignores (and does not alert you to) the warning given about using these images from the Lunar & Planetary Institute:

"Because of all this processing, these catalog images should not be used for research purposes. They should only be used to select and identify images for use in a research project. Higher resolution products should be obtained for use in any scientific investigation(s)."


http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/10100079.jpg (AS15-86-11530)

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/i...S11/39/5737.jpg (AS11-39-5737)

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/i...S11/40/5970.jpg (AS11-40-5970)

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/i...S12/46/6868.jpg (AS12-46-6868)

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/i...S12/47/7021.jpg (AS12-47-7021)

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/i...S12/48/7022.jpg (AS12-48-7022)

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/i...S12/49/7172.jpg (AS12-49-7172)

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/i...S12/49/7324.jpg (AS12-49-7324)




Link to comment
Share on other sites


More of the same.

Look at the original images.

AS12-49-7319 look interesting, but it's some type of light leakage. The next image on the roll (7320) is fine, but the final four on the roll (7321-7324) are all badly damaged by being lightstruck.

As for the "pyramid" (as the "editor" calls it), look at a version that has not been 'photoshopped' to death:



Link to comment
Share on other sites


Here Jack uses a little deception to enhance his claims.

Firstly, Jack has NOT 'proved' that there was a "wrecker" in the previously mentioned image. He has CLAIMED there was one through very doubtful means - misuse of Photoshop or similar. I have previously asked Jack that if we were to submit his working image along with his resultant image (and thus claims) to the makers of Photoshop, and if they in their opinion said that it was the result of the misapplication of the Photoshop tools, would Jack withdraw his claim? He remains silent and refuses to answer - because he knows that it would be the most likely outcome. Therefore I will submit the images to the makers of Photoshop and ask their opinion anyway; stay tuned for results.

Secondly, Jack has 'colourised' the image to suit his own purposes. The image (AS12-48-7102) was a BLACK & WHITE image which Jack has shown in colour that he has added - and conveniently 'forgotten' to mention that fact.

Now, let's look at the image. Here is a crop of the hi-resolution image showing the section in question:


AS12-48-7102 (Hi-resolution, cropped)

So what is it? Short answer - I don't know. I do know it is not a toy crane...

What I do find intersting is that the length of the artifact matches the length of a section of the Surveyor extended arm. If we also draw a line along the shadow axis (marked in yellow below), we can see that it seems to be a mirror image of that section of the Surveyor extended arm (marked in red).


AS12-48-7102 (Hi-resolution, cropped, annotated)

I think it is some type of reflection. I can't say for sure because I don't have the necessary skills to positively determine that it is, but I think it is a reasonable guess.

I'd welcome comment on my guess from professional photographers and / or those with the necessary skills.

Link to comment
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...