Debunking Duane...

[Len Colby]

Len ... It's not a question of "buying a bill of goods" from anyone ... It's a question of the fact that no one here can refute either of the Dr. Jones' claims about Apollo being a hoax , so they try to attack him personally instead by questioning his credentials .... It's a tactic known as attacking the messenger because you don't like the message ... and this tactic is an old one, used by those who can't disprove someone's evidence .

Yeah sort of like you calling your opponents “Nazi”, “stupid”, “sociopath” or dog $#!& etc. Funny how the member who complains the most about personal insults is also the worst offender!

Jones credentials or lack there of are relevant because you cited them as a reason to take what he says more seriously. In that sense you were right it is important to know how much a person knows about a subject when evaluating their arguments. Also if he is fraudulently claiming credentials he doesn’t have that is a serious blow to his credibility.

As to refuting his arguments that has been done by your opponents countless times whether you acknowledge it or not, burying your head in the sand is not a very effective tactict.

Jan Lundberg's claims about the Kodak Land film can be found in the documentary 'Conspiracy Theory: Did we Land on the Moon ?' and also the book 'Dark Moon' by David Percy and Mary Bennett ... Both authors travelled to the Hasslebald Company and interviewed Mr. Lundberg in person .... That's how they found out what type of film was used in the Apollo Hassleblad cameras... Regular Kodak Land film

.

An exact quote would be helpful did he express disbelief or surprise? I am also not sure he would know exactly what kind of film the camera would use or would be especially qualified to judge the quality of Apollo photography. If he said the cameras used “Kodak Land film” he would have demonstrated shocking ignorance of the subject.

If you bothered to read Dr. Neville Jones' article , I think it's very obvious how extensive his photographic experience is ... He was able to blow his opponent right out the water and prove that the Apollo photography was faked right here on Earth .... That's all the credentials I need to see .

In other words you are backing away from your claim that he is professional photographer and admitting in a backhanded way that you claimed he was based on nothing but your impression that he is very knowledgeable about photography. This raises a question; since you admit your knowledge of photography is limited on what basis did you make such a determination?

I read his article and no I don’t think he blew “his opponent right out the water” or proved anything or demonstrated knowledge of photography much beyond mine. Jack has also been conspicuously absent from these threads, don’t you think if he agreed with Jones he’d back him (you) up?

[Dave Greer]

Jan Lundberg's claims about the Kodak Land film can be found in the documentary 'Conspiracy Theory: Did we Land on the Moon ?' and also the book 'Dark Moon' by David Percy and Mary Bennett ... Both authors travelled to the Hasslebald Company and interviewed Mr. Lundberg in person .... That's how they found out what type of film was used in the Apollo Hassleblad cameras... Regular Kodak Land film

.

An exact quote would be helpful did he express disbelief or surprise? I am also not sure he would know exactly what kind of film the camera would use or would be especially qualified to judge the quality of Apollo photography. If he said the cameras used “Kodak Land film” he would have demonstrated shocking ignorance of the subject.

Nothing like asking Hasselblad themselves for their own opinion - here's the reply I received a few months ago. Bizarrely, an HBer from a different forum called me "creepy" for contacting them. Strange.

Hi David,

We have gotten this type of questions several times, as you probably understand. We do not have an official Hasselblad statement, but we have an answer written by one collegue some years back. In this answer there is answers to a couple of different questions. One of them is about the same image that you askes about. Here comes the answer from Erland Pettersson, who was Product manager of the V System and optical expert:

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I spent quite some time this weekend to check the video tape recording of the FOX program concerning their suspicions around the Apollo moon program. At a first glance (like for an ordinary TV viewer) most of the arguments seem at least reasonable. After a careful examination with slow motion checking of the examples claiming to illustrate faking of the still pictures (I restrict my opinions to this area only) I reject each and every statement made that is claimed to support some kind of conspiracy theory stating that the pictures were taken on earth with additional lighting as well as image manipulation. All their examples have, in my opinion, natural explanations provided you have basic knowledge about photography and optics. Below is a summary of my

comments:

1 Claiming of the use of multiple light sources

1.1 Shadows with different directions

Given examples are no proofs. It is impossible to judge the exact direction of shadows for distant objects. If the ground is not perfectly flat this can make you believe that the shadow has a different direction. You just can see a part of the shadow in these cases.

Another remark: Somebody that has tried to illuminate such great areas with an artificial spotlight (you can see that there is a point source giving the shadows) knows that you need a huge power and a very distant light source to avoid the distance square law for illumination. The surface is evenly illuminated. How to do this artificially and be able to expose with normal sensitivity film (I think they used film with absolutely maximum of ISO 100) is making no sense to me. Just this fact tells me that the sun is the only light source.

1.2 Reflexes in the astronaut helmet

This was the interview with Jan Lundberg from VHAB, where he could not explain this fact. It was said that this was a proof for using an additional light source reflected in the helmet and used for illumination of the astronaut in backlight condition with the sun coming in from rear. Nobody here really knows when this interview was made. We think it is roughly 5 years old and nobody of us used to examine crazy things in pictures were asked to have a look at the pictures at that time. Probably the shown part was only a fraction of a larger interview.

The explanation of this reflex is found in another picture shown in the program. The taking situation is very similar but the distance to the astronaut is closer. Then you can see (with the helmet working as a convex mirror) the image of the astronaut taking the picture, the shadow of the astronaut being photographed and the image of the moon lander standing not far from the photographer. The astronaut image in the helmet is very clear and very bright! Actually the same brightness as the so-called reflex of the extra light source on the image shown to Jan L. The high brightness of the astronaut is explained by his dress, which apart from being white also can have mirror like reflections further increasing the brightness. The helmet works as a mirror with a guessed reflectivity of 60-70 % (giving the same transmission for the astronaut like a Polaroid sunglass).

The added light on the shadow side of the astronaut is more or less certainly coming from reflexes in the moon lander outfit. The lander has brownish looking flat surfaces working as very good reflectors for fill-in light.

1.3. Illumination of shadow parts

Claims are made that astronauts should look like silhouettes in backlit conditions but they don't. Again I am convinced that all examples are taken with the astronauts close to the moon lander. Parts of the lander give through reflection the added light to the shadows.

2. Parts of crosshairs "behind" the object

This is no manipulation. It comes naturally in highlight areas due to the technique involved. The crosshairs are metal coatings on the rear side of the glass but still with some space to the film. They are also acting as reflectors for light scattered from the film surface. This means that in highlight areas the indication system just does not work. The crosshair is "eaten" by the bright surrounding area. We can easily repeat the performance. And why manipulating a thing like this in the first place?

3. Perfect pictures with such a primitive framing

The 5.6/60 Distagon lens was set to fixed choices of apertures depending on how the photographer was orienting the camera in relation to the sun. The framing was primitive but according to the picture quality it worked out very well.

I am making this report only to summarize my evaluation. Still I spent considerable time to check the program. All comments are my personal ones and are not the corporate statement of Hasselblad. I may not be perfectly right in every statement, but I am absolutely sure that the program "experts" are not any better.

Best regards

Erland

-----------------------------------------------------

Hope this will help you in your discussions!

Best regards

Bjorn

Hi

I have a somewhat strange request for you!

I?m interested in the Apollo moon landings 1969 ? 1972, especially the

photographic record.

As I?m sure you?re aware, all the still photos taken on the surface of the

moon by Apollo astronauts were captured using specially adapted Hasselblad

cameras. I participate in various online forums and discussion groups

concerning the reality of the Apollo missions ? my own belief is of

course, that 12 astronauts successfully landed on the moon and returned to

earth. However, there is a conspiracy DVD by David Percy which claims that

the moon landings ? or at least the photographic record ? was faked by

NASA. This DVD (also available on either Youtube or Google Video),

contains a short interview with a spokesman from Hasselblad, Jan Lundberg

I believe, in which he appears to say that at least one of the Apollo

photos seems like it was taken using a spotlight (thus proving that the

photographic record was faked).

Can you advise who I need to contact for an official statement from

Hasselblad as to what your position is regarding the authenticity of the

Apollo photographs?

In particular, do you believe that this photograph was taken on the moon,

or was it faked in a studio using studio lighting?

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/as11-40-5903HR.jpg

Many thanks for your time and consideration

Dave Greer

Bjorn Rohsman

[Craig Lamson]

Jan Lundberg's claims about the Kodak Land film can be found in the documentary 'Conspiracy Theory: Did we Land on the Moon ?' and also the book 'Dark Moon' by David Percy and Mary Bennett ... Both authors travelled to the Hasslebald Company and interviewed Mr. Lundberg in person .... That's how they found out what type of film was used in the Apollo Hassleblad cameras... Regular Kodak Land film

.

An exact quote would be helpful did he express disbelief or surprise? I am also not sure he would know exactly what kind of film the camera would use or would be especially qualified to judge the quality of Apollo photography. If he said the cameras used “Kodak Land film” he would have demonstrated shocking ignorance of the subject.

Nothing like asking Hasselblad themselves for their own opinion - here's the reply I received a few months ago. Bizarrely, an HBer from a different forum called me "creepy" for contacting them. Strange.

Hi David,

We have gotten this type of questions several times, as you probably understand. We do not have an official Hasselblad statement, but we have an answer written by one collegue some years back. In this answer there is answers to a couple of different questions. One of them is about the same image that you askes about. Here comes the answer from Erland Pettersson, who was Product manager of the V System and optical expert:

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I spent quite some time this weekend to check the video tape recording of the FOX program concerning their suspicions around the Apollo moon program. At a first glance (like for an ordinary TV viewer) most of the arguments seem at least reasonable. After a careful examination with slow motion checking of the examples claiming to illustrate faking of the still pictures (I restrict my opinions to this area only) I reject each and every statement made that is claimed to support some kind of conspiracy theory stating that the pictures were taken on earth with additional lighting as well as image manipulation. All their examples have, in my opinion, natural explanations provided you have basic knowledge about photography and optics. Below is a summary of my

comments:

1 Claiming of the use of multiple light sources

1.1 Shadows with different directions

Given examples are no proofs. It is impossible to judge the exact direction of shadows for distant objects. If the ground is not perfectly flat this can make you believe that the shadow has a different direction. You just can see a part of the shadow in these cases.

Another remark: Somebody that has tried to illuminate such great areas with an artificial spotlight (you can see that there is a point source giving the shadows) knows that you need a huge power and a very distant light source to avoid the distance square law for illumination. The surface is evenly illuminated. How to do this artificially and be able to expose with normal sensitivity film (I think they used film with absolutely maximum of ISO 100) is making no sense to me. Just this fact tells me that the sun is the only light source.

1.2 Reflexes in the astronaut helmet

This was the interview with Jan Lundberg from VHAB, where he could not explain this fact. It was said that this was a proof for using an additional light source reflected in the helmet and used for illumination of the astronaut in backlight condition with the sun coming in from rear. Nobody here really knows when this interview was made. We think it is roughly 5 years old and nobody of us used to examine crazy things in pictures were asked to have a look at the pictures at that time. Probably the shown part was only a fraction of a larger interview.

The explanation of this reflex is found in another picture shown in the program. The taking situation is very similar but the distance to the astronaut is closer. Then you can see (with the helmet working as a convex mirror) the image of the astronaut taking the picture, the shadow of the astronaut being photographed and the image of the moon lander standing not far from the photographer. The astronaut image in the helmet is very clear and very bright! Actually the same brightness as the so-called reflex of the extra light source on the image shown to Jan L. The high brightness of the astronaut is explained by his dress, which apart from being white also can have mirror like reflections further increasing the brightness. The helmet works as a mirror with a guessed reflectivity of 60-70 % (giving the same transmission for the astronaut like a Polaroid sunglass).

The added light on the shadow side of the astronaut is more or less certainly coming from reflexes in the moon lander outfit. The lander has brownish looking flat surfaces working as very good reflectors for fill-in light.

1.3. Illumination of shadow parts

Claims are made that astronauts should look like silhouettes in backlit conditions but they don't. Again I am convinced that all examples are taken with the astronauts close to the moon lander. Parts of the lander give through reflection the added light to the shadows.

2. Parts of crosshairs "behind" the object

This is no manipulation. It comes naturally in highlight areas due to the technique involved. The crosshairs are metal coatings on the rear side of the glass but still with some space to the film. They are also acting as reflectors for light scattered from the film surface. This means that in highlight areas the indication system just does not work. The crosshair is "eaten" by the bright surrounding area. We can easily repeat the performance. And why manipulating a thing like this in the first place?

3. Perfect pictures with such a primitive framing

The 5.6/60 Distagon lens was set to fixed choices of apertures depending on how the photographer was orienting the camera in relation to the sun. The framing was primitive but according to the picture quality it worked out very well.

I am making this report only to summarize my evaluation. Still I spent considerable time to check the program. All comments are my personal ones and are not the corporate statement of Hasselblad. I may not be perfectly right in every statement, but I am absolutely sure that the program "experts" are not any better.

Best regards

Erland

-----------------------------------------------------

Hope this will help you in your discussions!

Best regards

Bjorn

Hi

I have a somewhat strange request for you!

I?m interested in the Apollo moon landings 1969 ? 1972, especially the

photographic record.

As I?m sure you?re aware, all the still photos taken on the surface of the

moon by Apollo astronauts were captured using specially adapted Hasselblad

cameras. I participate in various online forums and discussion groups

concerning the reality of the Apollo missions ? my own belief is of

course, that 12 astronauts successfully landed on the moon and returned to

earth. However, there is a conspiracy DVD by David Percy which claims that

the moon landings ? or at least the photographic record ? was faked by

NASA. This DVD (also available on either Youtube or Google Video),

contains a short interview with a spokesman from Hasselblad, Jan Lundberg

I believe, in which he appears to say that at least one of the Apollo

photos seems like it was taken using a spotlight (thus proving that the

photographic record was faked).

Can you advise who I need to contact for an official statement from

Hasselblad as to what your position is regarding the authenticity of the

Apollo photographs?

In particular, do you believe that this photograph was taken on the moon,

or was it faked in a studio using studio lighting?

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/as11-40-5903HR.jpg

Many thanks for your time and consideration

Dave Greer

Bjorn Rohsman

Oh NO! "THEY"have gotten to Hasselblad!

[Duane Daman]

Where is this interview did it mention what type of Kodac film was used ? ... Did I miss something ?

When Jan Lundberg was asked by David Percy if he could explain why the famous photo of Buzz looked like he was standing in a spolight while on the lunar surface in the bright lunar sun , Lundberg said he had no explanation for what could have created that effect .. That is was a mystery to him .

This interview with Jan was also shown in the documentray "Conspiracy Theory : Did we Land on the Moon ?' , where Jan seemed to be stumped by several things about the Apollo photography ... One of them being why the lunar surface radiation the film was exposed to didn't fog the film or cloud the photos or cause the usual white spots which should have shown up on the photos had they really been taken on the moon and exposed to that type of deep space radiation .

Edited February 2, 2007 by Duane Daman