Jump to content
The Education Forum

Debunking Duane...


Craig Lamson
 Share

Recommended Posts

Duane (cribbing Jones) claims:

The developing and printing techniques he talks of are relevant where there is reasonable contrast over the exposure. On the Moon, there would be extreme contrast, so much so that areas would either be burnt out completely or not exposed in the least. There is no way that such images could be corrected as he implies, to the degree necessary to produce such sharp photographs.

Duane’s argument is non-existent. The tonal range of a scene is not a factor in the creation of sharp photographs. The following contribute to creating sharp photographic images. 1. Steady camera 2. Proper focus 3. Film characteristics Again the tonal range of the original scene is not a factor.

Anyone with any real experience would plainly see that the images coming from NASA are simply faked, studio shots, perfectly exposed and composed, where the level and type of studio lighting is completely controlled and metered. The astronots did not even have an exposure meter! Neither did they have a viewfinder! Anyone with experience of the Hasselblad 500EL, such as myself, will tell you that guesswork would not produce magazine after magazine of perfectly exposed and composed images. They will also tell you about the telltale signs of hotspots (indicating the proximity of highly directional light source) and infill (indicating the use of standard portrait reflectors).

Again Duane has provided no argument. Many photographers with REAL experience will tell you that Apollo images look nothing like studio images. They will tell you that what some people who lack the proper understanding of photographic lighting fail to see that the "infill" seen in the many of the Apollo images is the result of the reflection from the lunar surface ( as seen in the highlights on the surface of the snaps on the spacesuits and direction and quality of the shadows it produces). Duane is not specific about the exact "hotspots" he is talking about so it is impossible to subject this claim to inspection.

Duane tells us that the Apollo images are perfectly exposed and composed, which is simply not the case at all. Anyone who takes the time to inspect the Apollo image gallery in total will find that a large percentages of the images taken are out of focus, suffer from camera movement, are underexposed, overexposed, poorly framed and are rather boring content wise. His claim is simply false.

Next Duane tells us that the lack of a light meter somehow makes setting proper exposure impossible or at least difficult. This is simply wrong. Photographers for years have used the "SUNNY 16" rule for setting exposure. Ample example of how this rule works are available on the web.

Duane then tells us that the lack of a viewfinder makes composition and focus difficult or impossible. Again he is simply wrong. Another long time photographic technique is call "zone focusing". This works by using the dof scales on the lens barrel in conjunction with the f-stop being used to find proper focus point without looking though the viewfinder. In the case of the Lunar Hasselblad the lens was modified to provide click stop detents for close, medium and far focus. This can be tested with any camera that has a manual focus lens with a dof scale.

Composition can also be obtained without the use of a viewfinder. Even today we can find many examples of photo journalists and sports photographers holding a camera over their heads...without using the viewfinder...to take photographs. I do it quite often myself, while making images inside a tight space, where the camera is back up against a wall and the viewfinder is unavailable. Practice and experience allows me to make satisfactory images, just like the Apollo astronauts.

Contrary to what Duane says, it can be seen that there is little guess work involved in shooting photos with a camera like the Lunar Hasselblad. And despite his repeated claim, the rolls of Apollo are not filled with perfect photographs...but are filled with a mixture of great, good, poor and downright bad images.

There was no protection of the Hasselblad for extremes of temperature (Kodak Ektachrome, the film type used, crinkles up at well below the supposed temperature on the Moon), nor against radiation, which would have caused irreversible fogging on all images.

Duane is simply wrong again. There is no 'temperature on the moon" . But of course the film was protected from extreme internal temperature but the reflective coating of the film magazine and but the special film base employed. Duane has also not provided proof that the levels of radiation on the moon are at sufficient levels to fog film

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 33
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Craig - once again you're making the mistake of letting facts get in the way of a good story.

Party pooper!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duane (cribbing Jones) claims:

The developing and printing techniques he talks of are relevant where there is reasonable contrast over the exposure. On the Moon, there would be extreme contrast, so much so that areas would either be burnt out completely or not exposed in the least. There is no way that such images could be corrected as he implies, to the degree necessary to produce such sharp photographs.

Duane’s argument is non-existent. The tonal range of a scene is not a factor in the creation of sharp photographs. The following contribute to creating sharp photographic images. 1. Steady camera 2. Proper focus 3. Film characteristics Again the tonal range of the original scene is not a factor.

Anyone with any real experience would plainly see that the images coming from NASA are simply faked, studio shots, perfectly exposed and composed, where the level and type of studio lighting is completely controlled and metered. The astronots did not even have an exposure meter! Neither did they have a viewfinder! Anyone with experience of the Hasselblad 500EL, such as myself, will tell you that guesswork would not produce magazine after magazine of perfectly exposed and composed images. They will also tell you about the telltale signs of hotspots (indicating the proximity of highly directional light source) and infill (indicating the use of standard portrait reflectors).

Again Duane has provided no argument. Many photographers with REAL experience will tell you that Apollo images look nothing like studio images. They will tell you that what some people who lack the proper understanding of photographic lighting fail to see that the "infill" seen in the many of the Apollo images is the result of the reflection from the lunar surface ( as seen in the highlights on the surface of the snaps on the spacesuits and direction and quality of the shadows it produces). Duane is not specific about the exact "hotspots" he is talking about so it is impossible to subject this claim to inspection.

Duane tells us that the Apollo images are perfectly exposed and composed, which is simply not the case at all. Anyone who takes the time to inspect the Apollo image gallery in total will find that a large percentages of the images taken are out of focus, suffer from camera movement, are underexposed, overexposed, poorly framed and are rather boring content wise. His claim is simply false.

Next Duane tells us that the lack of a light meter somehow makes setting proper exposure impossible or at least difficult. This is simply wrong. Photographers for years have used the "SUNNY 16" rule for setting exposure. Ample example of how this rule works are available on the web.

Duane then tells us that the lack of a viewfinder makes composition and focus difficult or impossible. Again he is simply wrong. Another long time photographic technique is call "zone focusing". This works by using the dof scales on the lens barrel in conjunction with the f-stop being used to find proper focus point without looking though the viewfinder. In the case of the Lunar Hasselblad the lens was modified to provide click stop detents for close, medium and far focus. This can be tested with any camera that has a manual focus lens with a dof scale.

Composition can also be obtained without the use of a viewfinder. Even today we can find many examples of photo journalists and sports photographers holding a camera over their heads...without using the viewfinder...to take photographs. I do it quite often myself, while making images inside a tight space, where the camera is back up against a wall and the viewfinder is unavailable. Practice and experience allows me to make satisfactory images, just like the Apollo astronauts.

Contrary to what Duane says, it can be seen that there is little guess work involved in shooting photos with a camera like the Lunar Hasselblad. And despite his repeated claim, the rolls of Apollo are not filled with perfect photographs...but are filled with a mixture of great, good, poor and downright bad images.

There was no protection of the Hasselblad for extremes of temperature (Kodak Ektachrome, the film type used, crinkles up at well below the supposed temperature on the Moon), nor against radiation, which would have caused irreversible fogging on all images.

Duane is simply wrong again. There is no 'temperature on the moon" . But of course the film was protected from extreme internal temperature but the reflective coating of the film magazine and but the special film base employed. Duane has also not provided proof that the levels of radiation on the moon are at sufficient levels to fog film

I have answered your replies out of order , starting with the last to the first ...

Duane is NOT wrong because I copy/pasted Dr. Jones , the astronomer and professional photographer's evidence ... and he certainly knows more about the subject of taking photos in space than you do .

What about the film that was changed on the 'lunar surface' by the astronots with their under-pressurized gloves ? .... There was no reflective coating or special film used ... nasa only changed their story later about the film being "special" after they were caught lying about the regular Kodak Land film that was really used for Apollo .... Even Jan Lundberg , the man who helped design the Apollo camera at Hassleblad , stated that regular Kodak film was used and he couldn't understand how it could have taken those perfectly clear photos while exposed to lunar surface heat and radiation .... The lunar surface is completely radioactive .... Even the moon rocks should be hot with radiation , but of course they're not .

The studio perfect photos were the only one's avaliable to the public until nasa realized their mistake and had some imperfect photos made later in the 1990's for the internet , to cover their obvious blunder .

Without a viewfinder the picture perfect postcard Apollo moon set photos could not have been taken ... I don't know what professional photographers you have consulted with but the one's who are telling the truth about the perfect Apollo photos have clearly stated that it would have taken a professional photographer many hours to set up and block and produce the perfectly staged Apollo photos ... and that there is absolutely no way that an astronot on the moon , with no viewfinder could have taken those nasa postcard pictures ....

Many photographers with REAL experience will tell you that Apollo images look EXACTLY LIKE studio images.... Jack White , Dr. David Groves, David Percy , and Dr. Nathan Jones being only a few of these professional photographers who have the courage to expose nasa's crude photographic hoax .

Sorry Herr lamson .. but if this is what you consider making "toast" of Dr. Nathan Jones' evidence of the Apollo photos being studio fakes , then you obviously need a new toaster.

Edited by Duane Daman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Herr lamson .. but if this is what you consider making "toast" of Dr. Nathan Jones' evidence of the Apollo photos being studio fakes , then you obviously need a new toaster.

People

Once again I protest the use, on this forum, of the term 'Herr' as an assumed term of abuse.

While not German myself, I find this so offensive I may consider applying for German citizenship if it keeps going, out of straightforward solidarity for fellow human beings who should not be expected to put with this persistent, insidious abuse, but cop it sweet out of decency tinged with fear.

Edited by Sid Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cool your jets there Sid ... Calling Craig "Herr lamson" is just a joke ... Just like the crap that moon Nazi posts here .

If you want to read some REAL ABUSE , why not try reading some of his posts to me ?

Yeah, well it's not very funny in my opinion, for reasons explained.

"German" does not = "Fascist" and "Herr" does not = "Nazi"

Germans, I imagine, must find this seemingly light-hearted quip an unnecessary and unwarranted insinuation (perhaps I'm wrong about that, but I believe I would find it offesnive if I was in their shoes).

Why is it OK in an English-speaking forum to implicitly assume the feelings of Germans count for nothing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have nothing against Germans ... I am part German myself ... My grandmother on my fathers side was from Germany .

But I do have something against nasa and the Nazis who worked on the Apollo Project via Operation Paperclip .... Germans are not Nazis but Nazis were German .... And calling lamson "Herr" does not refer to him being German but rather having a moon Nazi mentality .... Sorry if you are offended by the term ... I will stop using it .. The joke was getting old anyway .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cool your jets there Sid ... Calling Craig "Herr lamson" is just a joke ... Just like the crap that moon Nazi posts here .

If you want to read some REAL ABUSE , why not try reading some of his posts to me ?

I agree, Duane...calling Herr Lamson is wrong. Herr means Mister, a term of respect in Germany.

Quit showing respect to Lamson by calling him HERR. Plain Lamson will do, since he deserves NO RESPECT.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Germans are not Nazis but Nazis were German ....

You forgetting there were American Nazis, and British Nazis, and French Nazis, and Dutch Nazis, etc, etc?

The correct term would be Fascist, though I suppose.

Edited by Evan Burton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr. Jones , the astronomer and professional photographer's

the astronots with their under-pressurized gloves ? ....

There was no reflective coating or special film used ...

nasa only changed their story later about the film being "special" after they were caught lying about the regular Kodak Land film that was really used for Apollo

.... Even Jan Lundberg , the man who helped design the Apollo camera at Hassleblad , stated that regular Kodak film was used and he couldn't understand how it could have taken those perfectly clear photos while exposed to lunar surface heat and radiation

Even the moon rocks should be hot with radiation , but of course they're not .

The studio perfect photos were the only one's avaliable to the public until nasa realized their mistake and had some imperfect photos made later in the 1990's for the internet ,]

Without a viewfinder the picture perfect postcard Apollo moon set photos could not have been taken

... I don't know what professional photographers you have consulted with but the one's who are telling the truth about the perfect Apollo photos have clearly stated that it would have taken a professional photographer many hours to set up and block and produce the perfectly staged Apollo photos ... and that there is absolutely no way that an astronot on the moon , with no viewfinder could have taken those nasa postcard pictures ....

Many photographers with REAL experience will tell you that Apollo images look EXACTLY LIKE studio images.... Jack White , Dr. David Groves, David Percy , and Dr. Nathan Jones being only a few of these professional photographers who have the courage to expose nasa's crude photographic hoax .

Duane are going to offer evidence to back these claims or to show the credentials of the "photographers" you've cited? Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Len ... Both Dr. Neville Jones ( who so far no one has even pretended to debunk ) and Dr. Nathan Jones have offered all the evidence you should need to prove that Apollo was a hoax .

Why should I continue to defend their claims when I already stated that I agree with their analysis of the Apollo evidence ?

Would you like to pretend to debunk them , or don't you know how to do anything but xxxxx ?

As far as their credentials go ... Dave already posted another article from Dr. Nathan Jones that he was stupid enough to disagree with .... And if either one of the Jones' were as non-existant and as bogus as the disinformation agent Charles T. Hawkins , I have no doubt that I would have heard about it by now ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Len ... Both Dr. Neville Jones ( who so far no one has even pretended to debunk ) and Dr. Nathan Jones have offered all the evidence you should need to prove that Apollo was a hoax .

Why should I continue to defend their claims when I already stated that I agree with their analysis of the Apollo evidence ?

Would you like to pretend to debunk them , or don't you know how to do anything but xxxxx ?

As far as their credentials go ... Dave already posted another article from Dr. Nathan Jones that he was stupid enough to disagree with .... And if either one of the Jones' were as non-existant and as bogus as the disinformation agent Charles T. Hawkins , I have no doubt that I would have heard about it by now ...

Please show us were you found any evidence the Nathan Jones is a PhD.

Also Neville Jones has BEEN DEBUNKED on a few levels already with more to come tonight.

First his statement about tonal range of a scene affects image sharpness is totally false and that was not contested by you.

Second his statement about 'the temperature of the moon" is in direct violation of the laws of thermodynamics. As such his silly claim about film damage tdue to heat also fails. You simply don't understand this one and how it applies to the Lunar hasselblads.

Third his claim that the photos are studio shots is simply unsupported and as such dismissed.

Fourth his claim of fill lighting is unsupported and dismissed. Also the Apollo images show the correct highlight and shadow characteristics to prove the fill came from the white spacesuit of the astronaut/photographer and the lunar surface. You are not equipped to understand this.

Fifth, his claim that a lightmeter and viewfinder are needed has also beeen debunked. This is an easy one to test, for those interested.

Finally his claim that the film would be fogged by radiation is simply handwaving and is unsupported by fact or evidence.

So far, you and Dr. J at batting ZERO, and more is yet to come tonight.

I don't expect you to be able to digest any of this mentally, and fully expect you claim it is lies but regardless, fact is fact and you are a loser on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as their credentials go ... Dave already posted another article from Dr. Nathan Jones that he was stupid enough to disagree with .... And if either one of the Jones' were as non-existant and as bogus as the disinformation agent Charles T. Hawkins , I have no doubt that I would have heard about it by now ...

Do you even have a clue WHO you are talking about?

The article posted by Dave was from Neville...

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<snip>

What about the film that was changed on the 'lunar surface' by the astronots with their under-pressurized gloves ?<snip>

"under-pressurized gloves"??

Duane -

What exactly do you mean by this?

Any facts to support your belief?

This is relevant how?

Oh and by the way - buy a dictionary - its "Astronaut"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as their credentials go ... Dave already posted another article from Dr. Nathan Jones that he was stupid enough to disagree with .... And if either one of the Jones' were as non-existant and as bogus as the disinformation agent Charles T. Hawkins , I have no doubt that I would have heard about it by now ...

I think you mean Neville, not Nathan.

Which part was I stupid enough to disagree with? The bit about the HST not working? Or the moon's brightness not being explained by the sun? Or the Earth being stationary and the stars revolving around it?

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...