photo alteration by the media

[John Dolva]

Is it known at all what the shoe print pattern if any of Clints shoe was? (Kennedy's?) This is just a print off the web, suggesting a reason for pattern on seat 'panel'.

Consider the pattern here in the top left quarter of the image. There are blue areas reminiscent of shoe print patterns

If these are caused by a patterned shoe sole, then that would explain the flow of blood into the areas between the patterns. Clints weight causes blood to flow to this area and the shoe pattern keeps it off certain areas. So I suppose it is better called a kind of negative print.

IF it indeed is a shoe print then it is not Clints shoe in the photo in question, as it is being presented as a smooth sole, not a patterned one.

the edge on the reflection possibly indicating shoe tread

If it's a shoe 'print' then it would appear where the deepest depression of the seat occurs. On an undepressed seat panel this is around the edges and where the upholstery buttons are. Therefore, for the blood to pool like this and to be directed into the channels between the shoe tread, it would require weight to be focused in this area. I'ts not at all unreasonable to visualise a situation where this weight would be distributed towards the toe area. Then the heel (which is poised roughly over one of the buttons) need not cause a pattern to appear.

Is it reasonable to expect that a working SS dress shoe to have a smooth sole or a patterned tread? The President, perhaps yes, but not necessarily. SS:: probably not.

Edited July 19, 2006 by John Dolva

[Bill Miller]

"Scotch" is a generality. Adhesive cellophane tape is more

descriptive.

While I do not care to turn another JFK related thread into a 'Jack White moon session' ... I sincerely have my doubts about it being scotch tape. I recall when the Apollo 13 crew had their air tank problem and how they were forced to invent a rig to fix the situation - they had used duct tape.

One other thing, your moon-flag photos are different. Note the angle difference and the dark spot at the upper right of the flag. In other words, these are two different photo sessions. That would certainly account for the changing light conditions. Have you examined this series of pictures for information about the lighting? How do you know where the sun was located?

Bill Miller

Edited July 19, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Craig Lamson]

The Craigster says the SPACESUIT is reflecting sunlight onto the

scotch tape causing specular reflections. But what if the

photographer is in the shade, and the reflectivity of the

moon surface is only 12 percent...where is the auxiliary light

coming from to illuminate the scene?

Jack

Two different images Jack. Deal with the iniital question THEN we can get back to this one (which by the way has been handled over on the Apollo thread)

In your inital post the photographer/astronaut is NOT standing in the shade. How do we know? First based on an understanding of the LM and second...SUNLIGHT IS STRIKING THE LEN! If sunlight is reaching the lens then it is also reaching the suit of the astronaut. End of story.

You do understand this righ?

The Craigster says the SPACESUIT is reflecting sunlight onto the

scotch tape causing specular reflections. But what if the

photographer is in the shade, and the reflectivity of the

moon surface is only 12 percent...where is the auxiliary light

coming from to illuminate the scene?

Jack

Sheesh Jack! There are specular highlights ALL OVER the gold mylar being caused by the reflectivity of the lunar surface. Couple that with EXPOSING FOR THE LIGHT LEVEL IN THE SHADE and you have your answer.

Also since you have not posted the image number how do we know the astronaut is in the shade?

Added on edit:

OK I went out and found the image in question, AS17-140-21370 Jack has this image number incorrect on his Aulis page. Anyway, what Jack is not telling you is that he cropped this image very tightly, REMOVING the parts that show the astronaut WAS NOT in the shade. What is important is that the lunar surface and the EXPOSURE setting that illuminates the shadow side of the LM

Edited July 19, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[David G. Healy]

'Bill Miller' wrote:

"Scotch" is a generality. Adhesive cellophane tape is more

descriptive.

While I do not care to turn another JFK related thread into a 'Jack White moon session' ...

dgh: surely you jest?

I sincerely have my doubts about it being scotch tape. I recall when the Apollo 13 crew had their air tank problem and how they were forced to invent a rig to fix the situation - they had used duct tape.

One other thing, your moon-flag photos are different. Note the angle difference and the dark spot at the upper right of the flag. In other words, these are two different photo sessions. That would certainly account for the changing light conditions. Have you examined this series of pictures for information about the lighting? How do you know where the sun was located?

Bill Miller

[Jack White]

'Bill Miller' wrote:

"Scotch" is a generality. Adhesive cellophane tape is more

descriptive.

While I do not care to turn another JFK related thread into a 'Jack White moon session' ...

dgh: surely you jest?

I sincerely have my doubts about it being scotch tape. I recall when the Apollo 13 crew had their air tank problem and how they were forced to invent a rig to fix the situation - they had used duct tape.

One other thing, your moon-flag photos are different. Note the angle difference and the dark spot at the upper right of the flag. In other words, these are two different photo sessions. That would certainly account for the changing light conditions. Have you examined this series of pictures for information about the lighting? How do you know where the sun was located?

Bill Miller

A faked photo is a faked photo...whether JFK or Apollo...and the govt

specializes in creating them. Maybe Miller and Lamson can explain

this one. NASA refused.

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

'Bill Miller' wrote:

"Scotch" is a generality. Adhesive cellophane tape is more

descriptive.

While I do not care to turn another JFK related thread into a 'Jack White moon session' ...

dgh: surely you jest?

I sincerely have my doubts about it being scotch tape. I recall when the Apollo 13 crew had their air tank problem and how they were forced to invent a rig to fix the situation - they had used duct tape.

One other thing, your moon-flag photos are different. Note the angle difference and the dark spot at the upper right of the flag. In other words, these are two different photo sessions. That would certainly account for the changing light conditions. Have you examined this series of pictures for information about the lighting? How do you know where the sun was located?

Bill Miller

A faked photo is a faked photo...whether JFK or Apollo...and the govt

specializes in creating them. Maybe Miller and Lamson can explain

this one. NASA refused.

Jack

Take it to another thread Jack..in fact this has been explained elsewhere on this forum.

[John Dolva]

Jackies dress. The left one from parkland.

Are any of her right side available? Any in color? Any of her hat?

EDIT:: actually, the only reason I place the left at parkland is because she is entering a hearse. It's probably after landing, after the middle one. (??).

The right one is a combo of both to position to see blood patterns.

Edited July 20, 2006 by John Dolva

[Jack White]

'Bill Miller' wrote:

"Scotch" is a generality. Adhesive cellophane tape is more

descriptive.

While I do not care to turn another JFK related thread into a 'Jack White moon session' ...

dgh: surely you jest?

I sincerely have my doubts about it being scotch tape. I recall when the Apollo 13 crew had their air tank problem and how they were forced to invent a rig to fix the situation - they had used duct tape.

One other thing, your moon-flag photos are different. Note the angle difference and the dark spot at the upper right of the flag. In other words, these are two different photo sessions. That would certainly account for the changing light conditions. Have you examined this series of pictures for information about the lighting? How do you know where the sun was located?

Bill Miller

A faked photo is a faked photo...whether JFK or Apollo...and the govt

specializes in creating them. Maybe Miller and Lamson can explain

this one. NASA refused.

Jack

Take it to another thread Jack..in fact this has been explained elsewhere on this forum.

Aw, c'mon, splain it here. Folks want to know.

[Craig Lamson]

'Bill Miller' wrote:

"Scotch" is a generality. Adhesive cellophane tape is more

descriptive.

While I do not care to turn another JFK related thread into a 'Jack White moon session' ...

dgh: surely you jest?

I sincerely have my doubts about it being scotch tape. I recall when the Apollo 13 crew had their air tank problem and how they were forced to invent a rig to fix the situation - they had used duct tape.

One other thing, your moon-flag photos are different. Note the angle difference and the dark spot at the upper right of the flag. In other words, these are two different photo sessions. That would certainly account for the changing light conditions. Have you examined this series of pictures for information about the lighting? How do you know where the sun was located?

Bill Miller

A faked photo is a faked photo...whether JFK or Apollo...and the govt

specializes in creating them. Maybe Miller and Lamson can explain

this one. NASA refused.

Jack

Take it to another thread Jack..in fact this has been explained elsewhere on this forum.

Aw, c'mon, splain it here. Folks want to know.

Tell you what jacko, how bout you splain exactly what the object is that is hanging over the lower triangle chrome strip in the Miller photo. There will be a test.

Then perhaps we can get to your very feeble attempt to deflect attention away from your failings on the Miller photo issue. You are so dang predictable..you get your azz kicked and you run away or try and cover with a diversion.

Edited July 20, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[John Dolva]

Apart from the funny stuff re the 'shoe-hand', this version from the cuban exiles site seems to have more subtle luminance nuances in the dark end of the grayscale spectrum.

For example Nellies face and the lady with the baby and things behind the window panes

Gary is trying to get find out about the negative which hopefully will enable more definite statements.

Edited July 20, 2006 by John Dolva

[Jack White]

Thanks to the Craigster's annoying harping on what the shape is

that he sees as a shoesole, I looked back thru my Corham file

and made this interesting discovery.

Your turn, Craigster.

(Others also feel free to comment.)

Jack

Edited July 20, 2006 by Jack White

[John Dolva]

Jack, I've been pointing out that line since one of my early posts.

Another thing is the pant leg. There is no other photo showing Clint's leg bent without the pantcuff riding high. IOW the supposed dark pantleg is not Clints.

[Jack White]

After such a good result with chroma adjustment on THIS PARTICULAR

HIGH QUALITY SCAN, I tried it again on Hill's right thigh, knee, leg and

hand. The adjustment clearly shows where Hill's leg is.

I hope that whoever posted this scan will repost it large as possible,

and give its provenance. It clearly is better than the SatEvePost scan.

What I have shown can be replicated by anyone with a graphics

program by adjusting chroma levels...possibly better than I did.

The "sole of the shoe" is an object with a shadow, and Clint's hand

is on his knee.

Jack

Jack, I've been pointing out that line since one of my early posts.

Another thing is the pant leg. There is no other photo showing Clint's leg bent without the pantcuff riding high. IOW the supposed dark pantleg is not Clints.

Thanks, John...I must have missed that posting! I thought

I had found something new!

Did you post this particular scan? It is much better tonally

than the one I scanned from SatEvePost. Can you post a

larger scan of it?

Good work.

Jack

[John Dolva]

It's the Yarbrough exhibit. It's downloadable in PDF fomat from NARA (use adobe to cut paste at 100 %)

I've also looked at it at the library in their WC Report (mint 1964 copy). The line etc are there as well(without pdf artefacts) unfortunately I have no way of scanning it without photo-copying first so it would be a waste. If you have a copy of the WC Report, please do a good scan and post.

Edited July 20, 2006 by John Dolva

[Jack White]

It's the Yarbrough exhibit. It's downloadable in PDF fomat from NARA (use adobe to cut paste at 100 %)

I've also looked at it at the library in their WC Report (mint 1964 copy). The line etc are there as well(without pdf artefacts) unfortunately I have no way of scanning it without photo-copying first so it would be a waste. If you have a copy of the WC Report, please do a good scan and post.

Do you have a page number or exhibit number? Never mind! I found it.

Jack

Edited July 20, 2006 by Jack White