Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 55

Thread: Another new Moon hoax website

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    29,100
    http://www.lunatrick.com/

    I'm curious about the "non-round" Earth, though he doesn't provide a good link to the original photo so I can follow up.

    Some of the others, I don't understand the problem. Most of the rest seem to be ignorance of basic photographic principles.
    Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,516
    While this website doesn't froth at the mouth like others do, it makes a lot of the same mistakes.

    The only really new thing on it is the question of why the crater on the mountain appears to move between pictures. But if you look at the pictures, it's obvious the photographer moved a bit between the two images. You'll notice in the images that the lander moves with respect to the flag as well, a clear indication that the viewing angle has changed.

    Other things (s)he says have been rebutted ad nauseum at other sites like http://www.clavius.org.

    I do find it funny he happens to use the term HB for the believers.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    556
    This person is so confused. No wonder he has done a very poor job.

    Why isn't the Earth perfectly round in the photos? Simple, it isn't. The Earth's equatorial diameter is 12,756 km, while the polar diameter is 12,714 km. There is also a slight bulge (about 45 m) in Northern Hemisphere, making it slightly pear-shaped.

    The rest of his arguments are thoroughly naive, so I won't address them.

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AstroMike on 2002-02-04 16:30 ]</font>

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AstroMike on 2002-02-04 16:32 ]</font>

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    29,100
    On 2002-02-04 16:19, AstroMike wrote:
    Why isn't the Earth perfectly round in the photos? Simple, it isn't. The Earth's equatorial diameter is 12,756 km, while the polar diameter is 12,714 km. There is also a slight bulge (about 45 m) in Northern Hemisphere, making it slightly pear-shaped.
    I don't think that would be enough to be visible, at least not with the photos of the size he's displaying. You're talking about a 0.3% difference between polar and equatorial diameter.
    Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    556
    Yes ToSeek, but that's not what I'm talking about. He's assuming the Earth is perfectly round, which it isn't. I would like to know where he got his first photo from. He says his second photo seem to be more accurate.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    29,100
    He says:

    Is the Earth supposed to be perfectly
    round or round enough you can't tell the difference with the naked eye?
    which I think is reasonable. But, like you, I'd still like to know where that first photo came from.
    Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    556
    ToSeek, I have found this photo of Earth from Apollo 11

    http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hi..._h_36_5355.gif



    Try placing a circular template over it. It's virtually a circle.

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AstroMike on 2002-02-04 16:59 ]</font>

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AstroMike on 2002-02-04 16:59 ]</font>

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,254
    I assume that cutting and pasting between sites is allowed if I am the origional poster? This is part of a post from http://www.apollohoax.com showing the problems with the assumptions made about the Jim and Dave Apollo 15 'Pack Shots'...

    Here are the two photos in more detail...


    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...5-88-11863.jpg 'Dave'


    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...5-88-11866.jpg 'Jim'




    Notice how the background matches perfectly. The foreground is different, with the flag and the astronauts and the LM in seemingly different positions. This is because the two photo's were taken from different places and at different distances. I had to rotate one of the images to get the match, so therefore I conclude that the camera was being held at an angle. If you look at the two seperate images, it looks as though Jim is leaning one way and Dave the other way. In the combined image, they are both standing upright. Notice also the angle of the LM. This suggests that the photographer was downslope when the photos were taken.

    Here's a link to a larger version, to show how well the backgrounds match up.
    http://www.apollohoax.com/wittspics/...layerlines.jpg

    More...

    Much has also been made of the famous 'Pack Shot' which is the photo of Jim above. Apparently it's too perfect. However, looking over the picture above, I found a strange thing. Apparently the photo of Jim was taken using Jims camera. Dave borrowed it to take 3 shots. He deliberately tried to get a good view of the LM, Rover and Jim with the flag. Here are the images, from ALSJ...


    Bit dark, not very good of the Rover.


    A bit better, Rover a bit out of shot.


    Best yet. I think that might do the trick.

    So it would seem that the perfect 'Pack Shot' was no accident. It seems that Dave saw an opportunity to get a great photo of man on the Moon, took three shots just to make sure he got it, then gave the camera back.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    29,100
    Oh, yes. I mean, there's something visibly wrong with the photo he's using - I don't need to superimpose a circle to tell that the Earth is squashed in that photo. But I don't understand why and can't without checking the original. (Frankly, the photo doesn't even look like an Apollo-era one. It looks more like one Galileo might have taken.)

    Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    556
    Here's another one from Apollo 16.

    http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hi..._118_18885.gif



    It's practially a circle too.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,254
    We have to remember here that these Earth photos were taken through the spacecraft windows, which could easily have distorted these images.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    29,100
    On 2002-02-04 17:26, johnwitts wrote:
    We have to remember here that these Earth photos were taken through the spacecraft windows, which could easily have distorted these images.
    That's a good point. I was noticing that the Earth image on the site seemed to be fairly low resolution - if it was taken from near the Moon, through the spacecraft windows, it could very easily have been distorted, much more so than the pretty pictures AM keeps finding.
    Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    556
    In case you're wondering ToSeek, his second photo is from Apollo 10.

    http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/images/pao/AS10/10075142.jpg



    This photo has a much lower resolution than the ones I previously posted.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    328
    The number, 20123799, which he put under the "egg-shaped" Earth pic on that site, isn't a link like some of the other pic captions. Is there a site where one can search Apollo/NASA pics by reference number? I'm wondering if this isn't somebody's doctored version, rather than a real pic.

    The (what me, suspicious?) Curtmudgeon

  15. #15
    Notice how the background matches perfectly. The foreground is different, with the flag and the astronauts and the LM in seemingly different positions. This is because the two photo's were taken from different places and at different distances. I had to rotate one of the images to get the match, so therefore I conclude that the camera was being held at an angle. If you look at the two seperate images, it looks as though Jim is leaning one way and Dave the other way. In the combined image, they are both standing upright. Notice also the angle of the LM. This suggests that the photographer was downslope when the photos were taken.
    I'm the nutcase with the website..
    here's the not-so-round earth link.
    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...5/20123799.jpg

    With all due respect, I have a small disagreement about your 11863 and 11866 photo analysis, Johyn Witts. Someone dropped 11866 7-8 degrees and raised 11863 7-8 degrees, of course they're gonna match. Irwin (11866) should be tilted more than what he is. Its really no big deal if they did cut 'n paste the mountain and/or the astronauts just to straigten them out, it's just I can't get anyone pro-NASA to say so. Must be a pandora's box thing.

    As for http://www.clavius.org they don't mention most of the photos (if any) I have. And whoever posted that should've known before they posted.

    As for those "it's so easily refuted, it's not worth responding to." posters, I get that alot. They won't respond to my questions but will go into great detail about why no blast crater or something as easy to refute. So the reason they probably don't respond is they don't know. I insinuate, but I obviously don't know. Why can't those who do know, tell those who don't? And those who do have questions, try not to be shamed into silence. I got over 330 visits inside 8 days without my site being in any search engines. Which isn't much but I'm guessing there has to be at least a few wanting to ask some questions.
    Ask up, if you want.

    thanks,
    CraigZ

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    29,100
    On 2002-02-05 03:53, CraigZ wrote:
    As for those "it's so easily refuted, it's not worth responding to." posters, I get that alot.
    My first choice for "easily refuted" would be the issues with the varying brightness in the photographs. The fact is that the brightness in a photo depends not only on the external brightness but on how open the shutter is, the length of the exposure, and the sensitivity of the film. You can overexpose a photo of a black cat at midnight if you leave the shutter open long enough, and you can take direct photos of the Sun with a fast enough shutter. Doing straight comparisons of two photographs is totally meaningless without knowing the details.

    Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    3,015
    On 2002-02-05 03:53, CraigZ wrote:
    As for those "it's so easily refuted, it's not worth responding to." posters, I get that alot. They won't respond to my questions but will go into great detail about why no blast crater or something as easy to refute. So the reason they probably don't respond is they don't know. I insinuate, but I obviously don't know. Why can't those who do know, tell those who don't? And those who do have questions, try not to be shamed into silence. I got over 330 visits inside 8 days without my site being in any search engines. Which isn't much but I'm guessing there has to be at least a few wanting to ask some questions.
    Ask up, if you want.
    This thread alone has over a hundred views, so that will account for some visits. Welcome to the BABB.

    I do have some questions:
    1) Have you ever taken photographs and developed and printed them yourself?
    2) What is your math background?
    3) What is your level of education?
    4) What is your age?
    5) What is your profession?

    If you don't feel like discussing any of this in a forum, feel free to tell me so by email.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,442
    I'm the nutcase with the website..

    Greetings. I'm the webmaster of Clavius.org.

    here's the not-so-round earth link.

    Okay, now prove it's squashed in the original negative, not in the hasty scan posted on ALSJ.

    I've found a number of spatially distorted photos on ALSJ, but only in the photos which have only numbers as their file names, not in those which have their NASA catalogue numbers for file names.

    So I did the unthinkable. I sent an e-mail to Kipp Teague, the photo curator of ALSJ, and asked what was up. The answer is quite satisfactory. The inferior photos were scanned by an automated process in the 1980s. How else would you scan 20,000 photographs? It involved loading a second-generation master onto a fairly primitive negative drive scanner modified to accommodate 70mm longrolls.

    This type of scanner is made for speed, not quality. And if you examine the photogrammetric fiducials in the scanned photos, you'll notice a tendency to compress the image in the roll-longitudinal direction -- the vertical axis in the photographs. This also corresponds to the direction of the scan head motion.

    The "numbered" ALSJ photos are known by researchers not to be spatially faithful. That's why real research is done from contact copies of the transparencies, or photogrammetrically controlled prints.

    Further, your Photo 7 is not evidence of an egg-shaped appearance to the earth in Apollo photographs. The falloff in intensity of illumination on the cloud cover at the 4 o'clock position on the disk should have been a clue that you're looking at the terminator, not the disk boundary.

    Someone dropped 11866 7-8 degrees and raised 11863 7-8 degrees, of course they're gonna match. Irwin (11866) should be tilted more than what he is.

    But that's the point. You're using the astronaut as your estimate of "up". John is pointing out that the backgrounds do in fact match if you consider the mountain top orientation in connection with the LM orientation and the flagpole orientation. John is not using the image boundaries as a reference as most hoax believers inexplicably do.

    ... it's just I can't get anyone pro-NASA to say so. Must be a pandora's box thing.

    Not at all. First of all, I am not "pro-NASA". I merely believe the evidence against the Apollo moon landings is incredibly ignorant.

    Second, nobody should have to "admit" to some hypothetical process of falsification when it's clear to anyone with actual photographic experience what is going on. You seem to want the NASA crowd to meet you halfway, and you promise you won't gloat. I can't do that if I find all your evidence faulty.

    As for http://www.clavius.org they don't mention most of the photos (if any) I have. And whoever posted that should've known before they posted.

    Whoever posted that noted that many of your "other arguments" are covered at Clavius, not necessarily your photographs. You speak at length on the whys and werefores of the hoax theory. So do we.

    They won't respond to my questions

    Very well. See below.

    Ask up, if you want.

    I too would like to know your level and focus of education.

    I too would like to know if you have any photographic experience involving manual exposure and hand developing. Have you ever retouched or modified a photo using only mechanical or chemical techniques?

    Your assertions:

    Opening paragraph. I do not vehemently defend NASA. I defend the historical authenticity of the Apollo landings. I do not claim no photo was faked. I claim that the evidence I have been shown in the attempt to prove that various photos are fake, is the most absurd evidence I've ever been shown.

    Regarding hoax believers being of sub-par intelligence, I can't vouch for that. But having been professionally trained as an engineer and having apprenticed as a photographer prior to that, I can say that the hoax believers exhibit almost total ignorance of these and other applicable fields. I don't claim they're dumb; I claim they're either underinformed or misinformed.

    Photos 1-4. John Witts has provided a satisfactory explanation. Everything in those photos can be explained in terms of camera location and orientation. Further, your hypothesis does not answer parallax observations in what you claim to be a backdrop.

    Photos 5-6. Taken from scans known to be variously spatially distorted by the scanning process.

    Photo 7. Answered above. You apparently do not know what earth's terminator looks like.

    Photos 8-9. Of course a smudge on a photograph is not proof. But it is, however, something that hoax believers must explain. Had you obtained and read the paper in which this photograph was presented, you would have learned that it is not a visible-spectrum photograph. It is, in fact, a collection of registered images taken in various wavelengths and processed digitally. This is how most "photographs" taken with remote sensing spacecraft are produced.

    Photo 8 is a visible spectrum photograph.

    You're right: you are not a scientist. But you seem to be very liberal with your assertions that something is "absolutely ridiculous" before you have fully investigated it.

    Photos 10-12. You seem completely oblivious to the effects of exposure and scattering. Your assertion that the sun disk should appear identical in size and intensity in all the photos exposes (pun intended) your inexperience in photography.

    Had you done a thorough survey of the ALSJ photos and read the accompanying text, you would have understood the scattering effect produced by a coat of fine lunar dust on the lens. You would have seen other evidence of this phenomenon in a number of other photos.

    And if you knew anything about optics you would know that even a perfectly clean lens will scatter light.

    (By the way: Please use the NASA catalogue numbers, e.g., AS15-84-11348, instead of ALSJ file names. Those have meaning only in the ALSJ while the photo IDs are a universal reference. Those of us who may wish to consult other photo sources can't use the ALSJ file name to do so.)

    Photo 13. Lies near the end of roll 84/MM and therefore is susceptible to sunstrike. The vertical patch of overexposure just left of center confirms sunstrike. The anomaly in question is thus likely to be post-exposure light contamination that occurred as the magazine was removed from the camera body.

    If you measure the fiducials in this photo, you will find it is evidence for my assertion above that the photos in the "number" series are frequently squashed vertically.

    Photo 13b. Your assumption that the patch of light in the picture is the sun is naive. The lunar module windows are angled downward. This means that from the pilot's standing point of view the window would tend to reflect objects on the LM's ceiling. Above the pilot's head is a rectangular docking window. The shading on the command module in the photo indicates the sun is roughly above the LM. The light scattering effect of condensate and chemicals outgassing from the window seals is well documented and evident in most photographs of the spacecraft interior. You are seeing the reflection of scattered sunlight through the docking window, reflected on the main window through which the photograph was taken.

    Photo 14. No reference is given and the photo is of poor quality. Please provide either the NASA photo ID or a clearer photo.

    Photo 15. Taken nearly up-sun. What you assume is reflected light on the lunar surface are "rays" scattered by the camera lens.

    Photo 16-17. Your hypothesis is that the edge darkening is a byproduct of having airbrushed out the original background to replace it with a black sky.

    You correctly note that it happens only on black and white photographs, which is more than most hoax believers manage. However, your hypothesis doesn't really explain it.

    Consider the following flaws in your observation.

    1. Are you aware that the color film was reversal while the black and white film was negative? Do you know the difference in how each would have to be processed in order to get the image you're looking at?

    2. You ignore the fact that other edge boundaries, not just terrain-sky boundaries, also exhibit edge darkening.

    3. You ignore the fact that it does not appear in adjacent photos on the roll, photos apparently snapped only seconds apart.

    Consider the following misconceptions regarding airbrushes:

    1. An airbrush would indeed leave such an indistinct edge -- but only in the hands of a complete novice. Even beginning airbrush artists are taught the principles of masking. In fact, it's a fundamental skill to the medium. Your hypothesis does not present a plausible use of an airbrush.

    2. Airbrushes are not the only tools that can be used to mechanically alter photos. Airbrushes are used only when smooth gradients are needed. To obtain high opacity or sharp lines, regular bristle brushes are commonly used. Your hypothesis does not present a plausible method of photo retouching.

    3. Removing an original earth sky and replacing it with black is best done with razor techniques. It would be very labor-intensive to paint it uniform black when could be done much more quickly and easily done by razoring out the sky on a negative and printing from that. You get the uniform black background for free. Your hypothesis does not present a plausible method for this type of photo retouching.

    You seem unconcerned that all the evidence points to insufficient agitation during the positive baths that would only affect black and white film (since the color film didn't require that process), only affect it in spots, and produce just such a "dodge" effect.

    Photo 18-19. If the photographs were taken in broad daylight, how does your hypothesis explain the stark shadows?

    Photo 20-21. You say you haven't been able find any evidence of a second flag. It took me 18 seconds to find this:

    Cernan - "The flag that we took to deploy was the one that had hung on the wall of the Mission Control Center during all the landing missions. And we also had another flag, which we brought back to replace the one that we deployed at Taurus-Littrow." See NASA photo
    S73-38346 which shows Gene and Jack persenting the replacement flag to Gene Kranz in the MOCR in December 1973.
    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi....alsepoff.html

    Maybe people don't answer your questions because it's obvious you aren't looking very hard yourself for the answers.

    Bright surface photos. Do you understand photo exposure? Do you understand exposure latitude in reversal film? It has nothing to do with "NBs" admitting that "HBs" were "right all along." You seem to have no clue how photography works.

    Returning to the moon. Clavius deals with this at length. A point not mentioned there is how badly Apollo 13 had scared everyone -- they decided to quit at 17 because of that. Nowadays there is no social mandate to go, so we don't go. It's not NASA's decision. It's the decision of the U.S. public.

    NASA's viability. NASA did in fact suffer through numerous failures in the early 1960s. Your hypothesis is historically inaccurate.

    Distraction from Vietnam. Again, historically inaccurate. The same people who were protesting Vietnam were also protesting the moon landings. And "Tricky Dicky" had almost nothing to do with Apollo except to slash its budget and accept all the accolades for the Johnson administration's work.

    The whistle-blower theory. It's not a rumor going around the Internet but rather the subject of a 500-page book by David Percy. Releasing photos on the Internet is irrelevant. The photos have been available on the Internet since the mid 1980s, and in print and transparency form since the mid-1970s. They have always been in the hands of expert photo analysts and qualified researchers from all over the world.

    Making them available on the Internet simply makes it easier for uninformed, uneducated, inexperienced people to download them from the comfort of their living rooms and make up wild stories about them.

    I concur with the opinions given already. Your site certainly doesn't "foam at the mouth" like other sites, but it is nevertheless based on assumption you've made in the absence of experience, knowledge, and careful research. You're jumping repeatedly to hoax-based conclusions to explain what you believe are anomalies. Yet you seem not to want to be considered a hoax believer.


    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-02-05 11:29 ]</font>

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    527
    I’m sorry but I have a hard time accepting the expertise of someone trying to analyze photos when the person doesn’t even have a basic understanding of parallax! As for http://www.clavius.org, while the site may not specifically use CraigZ’s photos, the site goes to great lengths to explain the basics of photography and how you must have a very good understanding of the subject before you can do in depth analyses of photographs. I suggest that CraigZ spend a few hours visiting the site as a start of his education

    I regret that I too have contributed to the site’s hit count – I forgot that the more hits one of these HB sites get, the more the author feels vindicated.

    JayUtah - You took care of this while I was writting it. I should have checked the BB prior to formally posting.

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SpacedOut on 2002-02-05 13:48 ]</font>

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,516
    On 2002-02-05 03:53, CraigZ wrote:

    As for http://www.clavius.org they don't mention most of the photos (if any) I have. And whoever posted that should've known before they posted.
    Um. "Whoever posted that"? That was me, the webmaster of this site to which you are writing. And it does indeed cover in detail a lot of your claims, which is what I said. Reread what I wrote.

    As for those "it's so easily refuted, it's not worth responding to." posters, I get that alot. They won't respond to my questions but will go into great detail about why no blast crater or something as easy to refute.
    I'm curious: have you read my Moon hoax page, or the Clavius site thoroughly? As I said in my post above, most of your claims on your page have been shown to be incorrect. I have a big list of hoax sites, both pro and con, linked from the bottom of my hoax page as well.

    And I'll say it again: JayUtah is my hero. Nice work on the flattened Earth picture!

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    556
    Bad Astronomer: And I'll say it again: JayUtah is my hero. Nice work on the flattened Earth picture!

    Yep. I couldn't figure out that flattened Earth picture.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,254
    CraigZ says...

    With all due respect, I have a small disagreement about your 11863 and 11866 photo analysis, Johyn Witts. Someone dropped 11866 7-8 degrees and raised 11863 7-8 degrees, of course they're gonna match.

    That someone would be me. And 'of course they're gonna match' because all I did was take out the effects of the tilt of the camera when the photos were taken. The whole argument was that the backgrounds didn't match. If I'd matched up the backgrounds at the LM angles didn't match up, there would be something in what you are saying. Unfortunately, the LM angles are the same.

    Irwin (11866) should be tilted more than what he is. Its really no big deal if they did cut 'n paste the mountain and/or the astronauts just to straigten them out, it's just I can't get anyone pro-NASA to say so. Must be a pandora's box thing.

    If I'd matched up the background only to find that the astronauts were then leaning over at funny angles, there would be something in what you say. Unfortunately, the astronauts are brought back to standing upright in the combined image. Look at the yellow 'uprights' I've provided. Look at the linked hi res version. Both astronauts are standing vertically in the combined image. They seem to be leaning in the single origional images. HB's always harp on about how difficult it would have been to frame a shot like this with no viewfinder, big gloves, helmet etc, yet when we find a photo which seems to have been taken all wonky, they then find a reason to use this as evidence of a hoax, because the background angles are slanted. These two photos were taken by different astronauts. They may have had different ways of holding the camera. They may have used different hands. My point is that you cannot argue that the photos were too good, then argue that they were not good enough.

    Irwin (11866) should be tilted more than what he is.

    Based on what? He looks upright to me, in the combined image. He's not exactly falling over. If I find anything that doesn't look right, or I can't explain. I'll look it up in a book, or post it here or elsewhere and ask 'Why's that then..?'. I don't automatically assume that something I don't understand necessarily means I can't understand it. I just ask. And I usually get a consistent answer. By consistent, I mean an answer which also fits in with everything else I've learnt. I don't automatically assume Moon Monkeys or hoaxes. I'd rather accept that the astronauts had trouble keeping the cameras level than someone forgot to move the scenary right, especially as we know that the two photos came from the same camera suggesting it was hand held for at least some of the shots and not clipped to the astronauts chest. Do what I did. Get both photos into Paint Shop Pro and line them up. Fade between the two and you'll see just how exactly the backgrounds line up. This suggests the mountains were some distance away, not close up, as the LM and flag are different sizes, showing that the photos were taken from different places. If the background was a near-by cardboard model, it's size would also change and it doesn't. Anything else?

    [spelling again!]

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: johnwitts on 2002-02-05 18:23 ]</font>

  23. #23
    Cernan - "The flag that we took to deploy was the one that had hung on the wall of the Mission Control Center during all the landing missions. And we also had another flag, which we brought back to replace the one that we deployed at Taurus-Littrow." See NASA photo
    S73-38346 which shows Gene and Jack persenting the replacement flag to Gene Kranz in the MOCR in December 1973.
    That was ridiculously bad on my part, I took that down. I looked for that for hours, reading ASLJ backwards from post EVA 3 (to see why they left it behind) toward the beginning and tried to find info from ksc and jsc sites. Should've read the beginning. Those guys (NASA) would have to be brain dead to have done that.

    I'm having computer problems now,
    I hope to ask you more questions when I'm up and running.

    thanks,
    CraigZ

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    3,015
    On 2002-02-06 01:20, CraigZ wrote:
    Those guys (NASA) would have to be brain dead to have done that.
    All right, Craig!

    I think we can extrapolate this.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,442
    And I'll say it again: JayUtah is my hero.

    And Kipp is mine.

    Nice work on the flattened Earth picture!

    Quite easy, actually. And I don't mean that egotistically. You don't need advanced education to solve 90% of the photo analysis issues. It requires only good observational skills and some curiosity.

    The JSC scans are terrific. Don't get me wrong on that. I think that if someone 30 years ago were told that anyone in the world would one day be able, with little or no expense, to obtain a collection of every photo taken on the Apollo missions, it would have floored him. But a good researcher simply must understand and respect the limitations of his sources. The JSC scanning project was an exercise in "breadth" and not "depth". One day they will no doubt be superseded by better scans.

    The reseau grid (the little crosshairs) is included on the LEVA photos precisely for the purpose of detecting image distortion after duplication. That's a necessary first step to photogrammetry, which is why so many stereo pairs were taken. Unfortunately only the surface cameras were fitted with reseau plates, so most of the en route pictures and lunar orbit pictures don't have the reseau grid.

    Ironically, Craig includes on his site one of the few photos taken in lunar orbit with the surface camera. These are important and rare because the resolution of the JSC scans doesn't generally let you see the fiducials. But if you take a picture of the moon from orbit, you have a big patch of white. You need to see at least four adjacent fiducials to assess distortion. In short, Craig's photo is one of the conclusive proof photos of the distortion in the JSC scans.

    I discovered the distortion not by using the fiducials but by doing some image processing between JSC frames and scans of the same photos taken from prints. I had intended to establish a baseline color correction model for the JSC frames, but I was annoyed at how badly the frames registered spatially. I finally found a few LEVA photos from the JSC collection that had fiducials I could use to confirm which version was correct. The JSC frames are, in some cases, squashed 15% in the vertical direction.

    Anyone can tell that the JSC scans are of poor quality. But you have to take that extra step and find out why they are so poor.

    The bottom line is that it takes so very little inquiry to find answers to these question. I spent about half an hour making observations, and I had a response back from Kipp in 24 hours. I strongly believe that the people who are so "confused" about Apollo photos simply aren't taking the time to do research. They already know what they want to believe.

    And I believe the professional moon hoax theorists like David Percy are simply lying when they claim they've done meticulous and exhaustive research. Percy claims he spent five years or some such inordinately lengthy period researching his book. John Witts can attest to how easy it is to find refutory evidence. It took us exactly half an hour to refute Percy's jump-salute claim. And his claim that all the photos are of studio quality is prima facie evidence that he hasn't looked at very many of them.

    These people must know they're wrong. You can't do the research they've claimed to do and make the statements they make.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    556
    JayUtah: And I believe the professional moon hoax theorists like David Percy are simply lying when they claim they've done meticulous and exhaustive research.

    Agreed. And frankly, if David Percy is an accomplished photographer, he would have known something simple as emulsion bleed in the crosshairs.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,442
    ... if David Percy is an accomplished photographer, he would have known something simple as emulsion bleed in the crosshairs.

    A very good example. For each photo he presents that looks like the fiducial might have been obscured by a foreground object, I can present ten or fifteen which show it's not correlated to object boundaries but in fact to highlights. Further, I can look at high-resolution versions of his photos and see that the fiducial is only partially obscured.

    If Percy found his proof photos by examining a reasonably complete collection, then he would have not been able to avoid seeing the photos which disproved his theories. So either he's lying about what he found, or he's lying about having made a thorough examination.

    Percy can sue me all he wants. It's my belief that David Percy is knowingly withholding contrary evidence and selectively presenting other evidence, with the intent of deceiving the public into buying his book and video.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,254
    Jay wrote...

    John Witts can attest to how easy it is to find refutory evidence. It took us exactly half an hour to refute Percy's jump-salute claim.

    That includes the time it took to start the computer, connect to the internet (dial-up in the UK), type the post, add some photos and check for spellings. The flap in question is actuially visible in his own video production. He's not even watched his own film. That's how meticulously he has researched his claims. It took me about five minutes to realise Percy was pulling everyones chains, and making the whole thing up for the money. It took Jay a good while longer, be he's probably more trusting than I am.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    556
    Here's a photograph of the Eagle Moon plaque.

    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...11-40-5899.jpg



    Notice how the crosshairs bleed against the bright lit lunar surface.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,254
    Even the 'classic' shows this effect. It's used in Percy's Book and Video. They use the centre cross hair to show the picture isn't central and to show that Neil's standing on a table (or something). But this central crosshair is visible on Buzz's knee, but dissapears into the lunar surface behind him. Some cut and paste job!

    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...11-40-5903.jpg



    Look at the central cross hair. Percy has analysed this photo to death, yet failed to notice the bleeding on the central cross hair. Some researcher.

    [Spelling!!!!!!!]

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: johnwitts on 2002-02-06 17:37 ]</font>

Similar Threads

  1. "Apollo Moon Hoax" Hoax Planetarium Show - Boulder, CO
    By stu in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 2008-Apr-17, 12:55 AM
  2. New Hoax Website
    By Ian R in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 2005-Oct-31, 06:11 PM
  3. Pro-Moon Hoax article hosted on UK government website !!!
    By Blue Moon in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 2004-Apr-01, 10:13 PM
  4. ANOTHER hoax website
    By BigJim in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 2003-Apr-08, 11:40 PM
  5. Wacky Hoax Website
    By jrkeller in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 2002-Sep-01, 03:23 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: