New material on moon fakes coming to Aulis soon

[Craig Lamson]

I am going to ask Bernice to post an image here from an Apollo photo,

showing a large piece of lighting equipment, consisting of a large reflector

pan, bulb, and likely a scrim, which softens the detail.

File number? You figure it out. You guys never do any research, so why

should I help you? There are plenty of clues in the image to help you.

Have fun.

Jack

Why be so deceptive Jack? What are you afraid of? You post a small, cropped and altered section of some unknown Apollo image without any image numer and you EXPECT people to sort through over 5000 images to find the source?

Take a hike.....

[Jack White]

I am going to ask Bernice to post an image here from an Apollo photo,

showing a large piece of lighting equipment, consisting of a large reflector

pan, bulb, and likely a scrim, which softens the detail.

File number? You figure it out. You guys never do any research, so why

should I help you? There are plenty of clues in the image to help you.

Have fun.

Jack

Why be so deceptive Jack? What are you afraid of? You post a small, cropped and altered section of some unknown Apollo image without any image numer and you EXPECT people to sort through over 5000 images to find the source?

Take a hike.....

I KNOW what to expect of you. Same old xxxx.

And I don't expect you to do anything. Do as you please. I don't give a damn what you do.

Just ignore me, I don't care.

Or just go away.

Or tell us what kind of lighting setup is shown...what reflector...what bulb...what size?

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

I am going to ask Bernice to post an image here from an Apollo photo,

showing a large piece of lighting equipment, consisting of a large reflector

pan, bulb, and likely a scrim, which softens the detail.

File number? You figure it out. You guys never do any research, so why

should I help you? There are plenty of clues in the image to help you.

Have fun.

Jack

Why be so deceptive Jack? What are you afraid of? You post a small, cropped and altered section of some unknown Apollo image without any image numer and you EXPECT people to sort through over 5000 images to find the source?

Take a hike.....

I KNOW what to expect of you. Same old xxxx.

And I don't expect you to do anything. Do as you please. I don't give a damn what you do.

Just ignore me, I don't care.

Or just go away.

Or tell us what kind of lighting setup is shown...what reflector...what bulb...what size?

Jack

Of course you know what to expect, I'm going to kick the crap out of your ignorant musings again. Thats what frosts your aging cookies...being proven wrong time and time agian. Of course you want me to go away, I'v made you look the fool over and over again, at least to the thinking and intellectually honest viewers.

So tell us Jack Just WHAT Apollo image is the highly altered crop from? Exactly what is it you have to hide old man?

Edited May 14, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Dave Greer]

Posted for Jack White..

B..

Well Andy Warhol would have been impressed. Without the Apollo image numbers this sort of stuff is meaningless.

[Evan Burton]

None of my studies has been "shown to be wrong." No comment is necessary.

Jack

That's not exactly right, is it Jack. What about your "There are no photos of this object" claim, and then I proceeded to give multiple examples of your 'anomalous' object.

[Evan Burton]

Why be so deceptive Jack? What are you afraid of? You post a small, cropped and altered section of some unknown Apollo image without any image numer and you EXPECT people to sort through over 5000 images to find the source?

Take a hike.....

Craig,

I believe Jack is being unreasonable but there is nothing as yet to say he is being deceptive. Please be very careful about using such a term.

Thanks!

[Evan Burton]

Jack,

You are showing a cropped image that has been altered (colour values, contrast, whatever) by the person who has supplied it to you.

Without a reference (image ID number) there is nothing to even say it is a genuine Apollo image. I don't believe, however, you would be so foolish or dishonest as to try and pass off a 'faked' image as the real thing. I'm sure you have checked the source image yourself, and agreed with the providers conclusions.

In that case, why not give the image ID number?

At first glance, I am thinking that it may be either the Rendezvous Radar antenna or the steerable S-band antenna on the top of the LM:

Here is a crop of the RV antenna from a shot that I took of the LM in the KSC Saturn V Hall:

Here is a similar shot from the same day of the S-Band:

I'll look for better shots of the two, and post them.

[Evan Burton]

Here is an image of the steerable S-band antenna fitted to the LMs:

(Source: The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal)

Now, this is the image Jack provided:

Look similar?

[Craig Lamson]

Why be so deceptive Jack? What are you afraid of? You post a small, cropped and altered section of some unknown Apollo image without any image numer and you EXPECT people to sort through over 5000 images to find the source?

Take a hike.....

Craig,

I believe Jack is being unreasonable but there is nothing as yet to say he is being deceptive. Please be very careful about using such a term.

Thanks!

He is trying to hide and mislead.....thats close enough to deceptive for me.

[Dave Greer]

Looks like it's a crop of as12-46-6767 (thanks to Peri for info). I downloaded the highest resolution version of the image I could get (4400x4600), cropped the appropriate portion and altered the levels in a similar manner. EDIT - the images above are not mine, the ones below are:-

Doesn't look like a light bulb and reflector to me. Looks like lens flare from a very bright light source.

Moreover, we can examine other similar photos, eg as12-46-6765 and as12-46-6766 - similar process has been done to those two photos below:-

If this was a bulb of some kind, the internal structure would be the same in all three photos. Since there are clear differences, a far more likely proposition is lens flare caused by a very bright light source. The sun maybe?

Edited May 14, 2007 by Dave Greer

[Duane Daman]

"Since there are clear differences, a far more likely proposition is lens flare caused by a very bright light source. The sun maybe? "

Yeah , or maybe caused by a huge arc light on the moon set , pretending to be the sun .

[Duane Daman]

I am going to ask Bernice to post an image here from an Apollo photo,

showing a large piece of lighting equipment, consisting of a large reflector

pan, bulb, and likely a scrim, which softens the detail.

File number? You figure it out. You guys never do any research, so why

should I help you? There are plenty of clues in the image to help you.

Have fun.

Jack

Why be so deceptive Jack? What are you afraid of? You post a small, cropped and altered section of some unknown Apollo image without any image numer and you EXPECT people to sort through over 5000 images to find the source?

Take a hike.....

I KNOW what to expect of you. Same old xxxx.

And I don't expect you to do anything. Do as you please. I don't give a damn what you do.

Just ignore me, I don't care.

Or just go away.

Or tell us what kind of lighting setup is shown...what reflector...what bulb...what size?

Jack

Jack ...Unfortunately things like Craig Lamson never go away , as their only purpose and joy in life is attempting to make people they don't like as miserable as they are .

[Jack White]

Jack,

Could you make a post in this thread when the material is up on the website?

Thanks.

http://www.aulis.com/further_findings.htm

[Evan Burton]

Thanks Jack.

[Dave Greer]

There's a lot of stuff on there, so I'll concentrate on what hasn't already been thoroughly explained already on this forum.

Apollo 11 lens fares

Kazimierz Ozóg has also drawn our attention to an Apollo 11 composite image created by Ed Hengeveld – a space flight historian who lives in the Netherlands.

Apollo 11 LM – composite

We assembled our own version (above) from photo numbers AS11-40-5850, 5863-69 and 5935 – the latter being essentially the flare of the ‘sun’ – located just outside the image frame. The main part of the large flare in AS11-40-5935 was placed in a position to approximate the location of the 'sun'.

During the original photography of these individual Apollo 11 images, a variety of lens flares were registered. We have superimposed Kazimierz Ozóg's lines tracing three separate axes of these lens element flares. (Lens flare is the non-image forming light entering the lens in such a way as to reflect off the internal surfaces of the lens, thus causing the flare elements themselves to become incorporated into the image).

Does this composite reveal the differing directions of the various key light sources positioned at the time of photography to ensure the best-lit result for each of the individual shots? See also studies analysing the 'sun' at the end of this article.

I find it difficult to believe that Jack takes this study seriously - it is a composite image made out of portions of no fewer than NINE images, each taken in slightly different locations and pointing in different directions. I really can't imagine that anyone who knows the slightest thing about photography would expect all the lens artefacts to point in the same direction. The lens artefacts on the line drawn in green appear to be caused by a specular reflection off a mylar covered LM strut

The image shows the location and direction of each image taken on the surface of the moon in magazine 40. I challenge anyone to explain to me why the images used in the composite should show lens artefacts pointing in the same direction.