Dave Greer Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 Apollo 11 anomalous footprint – and added flag? AS11-40-5874 As we have pointed out previously in the Apollo 11 photos AS11-40-5874 and 5875 there is a single, clear boot print lying at 90 degrees across the boot tracks that lead out from the flag to the camera position (see also close up below). This extra large boot print has 12 rib marks. The other astronaut boot marks in this picture have 9 rib imprints. There is absolutely no sign of any other prints made by this lonesome boot. Without a companion, or any other prints lying in the same direction and in the same vicinity, it is very difficult to see how this anomalous imprint could have come about. Such an occurrence is more consistent with the single imprint of a support of some kind, perhaps introduced to carry out an adjustment on the set and placed in the 'wrong' direction. Even, more probable, intentional whistle-blowing. I'll restrict myself to looking at the "bootprint" claim since the flag issue has been addressed elsewhere (you can see the flag in the high resolution images). The bootprint Jack refers to as being anomalous, or the result of whistle blowing, appears to have been made by Armstrong when he was maneouvring the TV camera into position. Check out the time-lapse film sequence below, approx a quarter of the way in. During part of the footage Armstrong is clearly sidestepping until he passes a small rock visible in both the film footage, and the Hasselblad image. This is supported by several other similar bootprints clearly visible in the frame. The 12 ribs instead of nine are easily explained by a partially overlapping print. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11f1093740.mov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 You restrict yourself to the bootprint study , because just as your mentors Phil Plait and Jay Windley do , you only bother to answer selective questions with selective answers ... Who do you people think you're fooling , besides yourselves ? How about addressing the rest of Jack's new findings ? ... Or hasn't Phil and Jay dreamed up any good 'rebuttals' for them yet ? ... I guess the old nasa think tank is a little slow to react lately , with all of the numerous hoax evidence to attempt to 'debunk' . Would you like to try these ? ................................. A familiar Apollo 17 image AS17-134-20384 However, the version shown below, enhanced by Kazimierz Ozóg, is not the image located in the Apollo Archive and the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, but can be found at http://grin.hq.nasa.gov, it is catalogued there as GPN-2000-001137.jpg. AS17-137-20384 For some reason the black area immediately surrounding the astronaut is a full, rich black, whereas the background to the flag and the earth has a much noisier, grainier black ‘sky’ – graduated in density. In What happened on the Moon? it was suggested that it would have been difficult for a photographer to take the above picture. This conclusion was reached because in the Apollo 17 TV recording of the EVA, the astronaut appears unable to get down low enough to take this picture at such an upwards angle. So is AS17-134-20384 a composite image? Was the flag superimposed over a picture of an astronaut, or an astronaut combined with a shot of a flag and its reflection? Jack White has also investigated this image – please see http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_19.html Another example of ‘blacking out’, in this case crude black retouching around an object in an Apollo photo is shown below: AS11-44-6581 LM supposedly in flight (enhanced) Retouching any black regions (as in the above example) means making an area solid black. This is done sometimes to conceal the fact that different blacks might show up in a montage. It is also a technique deployed when unwanted objects in the background need to be concealed that may be faintly visible 'through' the black. If done correctly, the technician should follow the edge of an object exactly. But if the subject contains fine detail, including flares and contact probes attached to the feet, as in the case above, it is easier and simpler to just ‘skirt around’ a section. See also studies by Jack White at http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_14a.html. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 You restrict yourself to the bootprint study , because just as your mentors Phil Plait and Jay Windley do , you only bother to answer selective questions with selective answers ... Who do you people think you're fooling , besides yourselves ? How about addressing the rest of Jack's new findings ? ... Or hasn't Phil and Jay dreamed up any good 'rebuttals' for them yet ? ... I guess the old nasa think tank is a little slow to react lately , with all of the numerous hoax evidence to attempt to 'debunk' . Would you like to try these ? ................................. A familiar Apollo 17 image AS17-134-20384 However, the version shown below, enhanced by Kazimierz Ozóg, is not the image located in the Apollo Archive and the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, but can be found at http://grin.hq.nasa.gov, it is catalogued there as GPN-2000-001137.jpg. AS17-137-20384 For some reason the black area immediately surrounding the astronaut is a full, rich black, whereas the background to the flag and the earth has a much noisier, grainier black ‘sky’ – graduated in density. In What happened on the Moon? it was suggested that it would have been difficult for a photographer to take the above picture. This conclusion was reached because in the Apollo 17 TV recording of the EVA, the astronaut appears unable to get down low enough to take this picture at such an upwards angle. So is AS17-134-20384 a composite image? Was the flag superimposed over a picture of an astronaut, or an astronaut combined with a shot of a flag and its reflection? Jack White has also investigated this image – please see http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_19.html Another example of ‘blacking out’, in this case crude black retouching around an object in an Apollo photo is shown below: AS11-44-6581 LM supposedly in flight (enhanced) Retouching any black regions (as in the above example) means making an area solid black. This is done sometimes to conceal the fact that different blacks might show up in a montage. It is also a technique deployed when unwanted objects in the background need to be concealed that may be faintly visible 'through' the black. If done correctly, the technician should follow the edge of an object exactly. But if the subject contains fine detail, including flares and contact probes attached to the feet, as in the case above, it is easier and simpler to just ‘skirt around’ a section. See also studies by Jack White at http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_14a.html. What? Daman fails to understand something about photography? Who would have guessed? He keeps good company...White, White and Percy...the ignorant 4... Why not check out a nice scan of that image here... http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ and then get back to us. Tell us if the file has been retouched? Anbd then tell us why the file at GRIN was retouched. I'll give you a hint...think d-max..think exposure... Now hop along tuber and see if you can learn anything.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 You restrict yourself to the bootprint study , because just as your mentors Phil Plait and Jay Windley do , you only bother to answer selective questions with selective answers ... Who do you people think you're fooling , besides yourselves ? How about addressing the rest of Jack's new findings ? ... Or hasn't Phil and Jay dreamed up any good 'rebuttals' for them yet ? ... I guess the old nasa think tank is a little slow to react lately , with all of the numerous hoax evidence to attempt to 'debunk' . Would you like to try these ? ................................. A familiar Apollo 17 image AS17-134-20384 However, the version shown below, enhanced by Kazimierz Ozóg, is not the image located in the Apollo Archive and the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, but can be found at http://grin.hq.nasa.gov, it is catalogued there as GPN-2000-001137.jpg. AS17-137-20384 For some reason the black area immediately surrounding the astronaut is a full, rich black, whereas the background to the flag and the earth has a much noisier, grainier black ‘sky’ – graduated in density. In What happened on the Moon? it was suggested that it would have been difficult for a photographer to take the above picture. This conclusion was reached because in the Apollo 17 TV recording of the EVA, the astronaut appears unable to get down low enough to take this picture at such an upwards angle. So is AS17-134-20384 a composite image? Was the flag superimposed over a picture of an astronaut, or an astronaut combined with a shot of a flag and its reflection? Jack White has also investigated this image – please see http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_19.html Another example of ‘blacking out’, in this case crude black retouching around an object in an Apollo photo is shown below: AS11-44-6581 LM supposedly in flight (enhanced) Retouching any black regions (as in the above example) means making an area solid black. This is done sometimes to conceal the fact that different blacks might show up in a montage. It is also a technique deployed when unwanted objects in the background need to be concealed that may be faintly visible 'through' the black. If done correctly, the technician should follow the edge of an object exactly. But if the subject contains fine detail, including flares and contact probes attached to the feet, as in the case above, it is easier and simpler to just ‘skirt around’ a section. See also studies by Jack White at http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_14a.html. What? Daman fails to understand something about photography? Who would have guessed? He keeps good company...White, White and Percy...the ignorant 4... Why not check out a nice scan of that image here... http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ and then get back to us. Tell us if the file has been retouched? Anbd then tell us why the file at GRIN was retouched. I'll give you a hint...think d-max..think exposure... Now hop along tuber and see if you can learn anything.... bump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 Wasting more bandwidth I see ... You don't have to copy my posts to post your hateful replies... I will know who you're addressing by the despicable words you use ... Either Jack or me . Speaking of u-tubers and learning things .. you should watch some of the Apollo hoax videos there ... The CT guys are doing a bang up job exposing nasa's scam there ... Millions of people visit that site , so it's the best place to expose the Apollo hoax .... David Percy has his hoax evidence on videos there as well , and I haven't seen anyone yet who was able to refute it ... They pretend to , like you do ... but then what they post is nothing bluster and bulls*it ,... just like what you post here . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 You restrict yourself to the bootprint study , because just as your mentors Phil Plait and Jay Windley do , you only bother to answer selective questions with selective answers ... Who do you people think you're fooling , besides yourselves ? Stop being so silly and concentrate on the topic under discussion please. If you bothered to look at the previous page you'll see why Jack is wrong about the "composite" image lens flares - no response from yourself. I restricted myself to the bootprint claim here because the flag issue has been addressed elsewhere - no response from you re the evidence I provided that fully supports my claim. See what happens here? Evidence is provided to counter Jack's claims, and you simply choose to ignore it, because you can't or won't refute it. You have a previous MO here - when sufficient evidence is provided to counter all of your or Jack's claims, you simply accuse someone of tap-dancing or of getting the answers from Bad Astronomy or Clavius. Can you offer any kind of serious rebuttal to my reply to Jack's claims? Or do you just want to steer the topic onto something new and hope it will go away? The only tap-dancer around here is you, since you never address any kind of rebuttal evidence in a meaningful way, you just accuse people of being "bling, lying NASA shills". BACK ON TOPIC. I've provided direct evidence in the form of 16mm footage taken from the Apollo 11 LM of Armstrong side-stepping while moving the TV into position, right where we see the footprints Jack claims are anomalous in the Hasselblad photo. Do you have a counter-argument? Can you demonstrate where I am wrong? Do you have any other form of empirical evidence that supports Jack's position and proves me wrong? Anything at all apart from bluster and rhetoric? If you have I'll look at it. Anything at all that constitutes evidence, so please don't revert to your standard "anyone who doesn't agree is a blind, lying NASA shill" tactic. How about addressing the rest of Jack's new findings ? ... Or hasn't Phil and Jay dreamed up any good 'rebuttals' for them yet ? ... I guess the old nasa think tank is a little slow to react lately , with all of the numerous hoax evidence to attempt to 'debunk' .Would you like to try these ? Duane - you lack the nous to address the simple rebuttals I've offered already. The more evidence that gets posted to counter Jack's claims, you more you accuse other's of tap-dancing, when in reality you are simply refusing to properly address the counter-evidence. I already studied one of these photos a few weeks ago on a different forum. You can see my reply in this thread here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 Wasting more bandwidth I see ... You don't have to copy my posts to post your hateful replies... I will know who you're addressing by the despicable words you use ... Either Jack or me .Speaking of u-tubers and learning things .. you should watch some of the Apollo hoax videos there ... The CT guys are doing a bang up job exposing nasa's scam there ... Millions of people visit that site , so it's the best place to expose the Apollo hoax .... David Percy has his hoax evidence on videos there as well , and I haven't seen anyone yet who was able to refute it ... They pretend to , like you do ... but then what they post is nothing bluster and bulls*it ,... just like what you post here . I know Percys work quite well, and I also know the glaring mistakes he makes, it shows amazing ignorance of the subject of photography. But give tghe man credit where it is due, he has managed to convince quite a few rubes send him money, and thats his goal. I quess folks like you who NEED to believe ratehr than learn and understand are easy marks for disinformation. Yea, tubers...you mean like Jarrah White making vids that show he does not even understand something as simple as focal length.? What guys like him are exposing is that they need to go back to school......ignorance abounds! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 David Percy's videos haven't been refuted? I'd say this YouTube pretty much destroys - again - such claims: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFIyhtu0QZ0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 Evan ... The YouTube video you posted here has not refuted any of David Percy's photographic evidence , which has proven that the Apollo photos and videos are studio fakes ... svector's Lunar Legacy series is nothing more than a bunch of nasa's cobbled together faked footage of a missons that never got anywhere near the moon . This has been proven by Bart Sibrel and David Percy , and no amount of nasa's new smoke and mirrors routine is going to change the fact that the Apollo photography was forged . Lamson ... Your opinion of David Percy , Jack White and Jarrah White is not only typical coming from someone with your pro Apollo agenda , but predictable ... Don't feel sorry for those who know the truth about the Apollo hoax ... Feel sorry for yourself and those who have been duped like you have, by nasa ... You are so blinded by your own narrow minded mind set , that you are incapable of seeing the truth , even when it is right in front of your blind eyes . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted May 18, 2007 Share Posted May 18, 2007 (edited) Evan ... The YouTube video you posted here has not refuted any of David Percy's photographic evidence , which has proven that the Apollo photos and videos are studio fakes ...svector's Lunar Legacy series is nothing more than a bunch of nasa's cobbled together faked footage of a missons that never got anywhere near the moon . This has been proven by Bart Sibrel and David Percy , and no amount of nasa's new smoke and mirrors routine is going to change the fact that the Apollo photography was forged . Despite the fact that the individual Sibrel / Percy claims were wrong? About a transparency? About being in LEO? That vid clearly showed that what they said was wrong. They showed how you can test the claim yourself. Which reminds me... how come you complain when we promptly point out the flaws in people's claims about a hoax; but then when another claim isn't dealt with you then accuse people of "restricting" themselves to only one part or being "unable" to address a claim? You want it both ways, AND you don't hold yourself to the same standards of proof. You type a lot of words but there isn't any substance to the text. Edited May 18, 2007 by Evan Burton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted May 18, 2007 Author Share Posted May 18, 2007 No wonder these guys don't learn anything. They don't pay attention. They keep referring to JACK'S NEW AULIS FINDINGS. Go to the Aulis website and read Percy's explanation that the new findings were sent to him by visitors to his website. Each of the findings is idenfified; these guys did not pay attention. Further, I would not believe anything written by people who cannot spell EMPIRICAL. The explanation for the bootprint being caused by a HOP and BOOTPRINT OVERLAP is ludicrous...like the single bullet theory. When you can't explain something, just make something up and hope it flies. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted May 18, 2007 Share Posted May 18, 2007 The explanation for the bootprint being caused bya HOP and BOOTPRINT OVERLAP is ludicrous...like the single bullet theory. When you can't explain something, just make something up and hope it flies. Jack Jack I find it hard to believe that anyone claiming to be open-minded would just dismiss that out of hand. You can see video of Armstrong side-stepping while moving the Tv camera just wheer the sideways print is: furthermore you can see similar sideways bootprints leading up to that position. The explanation of a "12-treaded bootprint deliberately placed by a whistle-blower" is the explanation that has been made up, and to be perfectly honest it's as ludicrous as it sounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 18, 2007 Share Posted May 18, 2007 (edited) No wonder these guys don't learn anything.They don't pay attention. They keep referring to JACK'S NEW AULIS FINDINGS. Go to the Aulis website and read Percy's explanation that the new findings were sent to him by visitors to his website. Each of the findings is idenfified; these guys did not pay attention. Further, I would not believe anything written by people who cannot spell EMPIRICAL. The explanation for the bootprint being caused by a HOP and BOOTPRINT OVERLAP is ludicrous...like the single bullet theory. When you can't explain something, just make something up and hope it flies. Jack It seems YOU are the one who is not paying attention Jack, The only person who is making the statement in this thread that these new studies are yours is your BUDDY DUANE! I've never claimed I can spell, in fact I suck at spelling. I am however quite good at creating EMPIRICAL photographic proofs that show you are ignorant about the workings of photography. And unlike you I don't ask anyone to believe anything, I EXPECT that they will learn the answers for themself via experimentation. You on the other hand simply ask people to believe you based on an appeal to authority...and nothing else. Its no wonder that eh only people to believe you are the ignorant.... So, since we know you can spell the word why not post some actual EMPIRICAL evidence that proves your foolish claim that you need a square format camera held at chest level to test your offset shadow theory? What will be shown via EMPIRICAL evidence is that it was YOU who simply made something up in the hopes it would stick. Whats even better is that Percy is on record agreeing with your ignorance! It's going to twice the fun taking you two down! Edited May 18, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted May 19, 2007 Share Posted May 19, 2007 My apologies Jack ... I did call them your studies . David Percy wouldn't waste his time arguing with these people , so why do we ? ... All Greer and West know how to do is to play mind games and post ridiculous 'rebuttals'... and all Lamson knows how to do is insult and character assassinate those who have exposed the Apollo photography for what it is ... CRUDE MOON SET STUDIO FAKES ... and the fact that he refuses to see this fact ,or admit to it , only proves that he's the one who is ignorant about photography . Lamson ... I will be sure to send your 'rebuttal' evidence to David Percy when you have" twice fun taking you two down " , as I'm sure he could use a good laugh . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 19, 2007 Share Posted May 19, 2007 My apologies Jack ... I did call them your studies .David Percy wouldn't waste his time arguing with these people , so why do we ? ... All Greer and West know how to do is to play mind games and post ridiculous 'rebuttals'... and all Lamson knows how to do is insult and character assassinate those who have exposed the Apollo photography for what it is ... CRUDE MOON SET STUDIO FAKES ... and the fact that he refuses to see this fact ,or admit to it , only proves that he's the one who is ignorant about photography . Lamson ... I will be sure to send your 'rebuttal' evidence to David Percy when you have" twice fun taking you two down " , as I'm sure he could use a good laugh . If you don't Duane, I will. I don't think Percy will be laughing Duane. Squirming will be more like it. Just like Jack WHite did in his latest study...he made up a bunch of meaningless crap in the futile hopes some suckers will believe him. And BTW, just where in Jacks latest exercise in misinformation is the empircal evidence you said you would produce? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now