The Apollo Hoax FAQ

I never did think much of the "Appolo Hoax" theory that has been floating
around for decades, but your post intrigued me because of the apparent
thoroughness and seemingly copious attention to detail, so I decided to
spend some time on the Appollo sites you mentioned in your post. I am only
going to address two of the most obvious flaws in your critique:

"Nathan Jones" wrote in message
...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


THE APOLLO HOAX FAQ version 4 - October 2003
Written by Nathan Jones


snip


Subject: (5) No stars are visible in the images, where are they?

Look again Mr. Jones. Look very carefully. Try adjusting the image size. Get
yourself access to a computer monitor with better resolution if necessary.
One thing is very clear. MOST of the images showing the lunar horizon show
literally dozens of very faint white pinpoints scattered randomly, which I
am willing to bet are stars. Only the images with the brightest foregrounds
do not show any stars (which you yourself acknowledge makes perfect sense!).
Furthermore, notice the stars very close to the horizon, some almost
touching it: They are no dimmer than the stars higher in the sky; you could
NEVER see stars this close to the horizon on Earth because of the
atmospheric horizon effect. Remember these images are digitized versions of
analog film. I am quite sure that the original photos would show the stars
even more clearly. Because of the lack of atmosphere, there is little
"dispersion" of light, thereby making it possible to see the stars, even in
the presence of bright foreground objects and sunlight.

snip

Subject: (21) Photographic anomalies, heiligenschein and
perspective.

Note, all the images referred to here used the same file name
as that used in the NASA online archive and were easily located
with Google filename or alternatively at the following
websites:
http://Lunar.arc.nasa.gov/archives/images/USA/
Apollo_11/Spacecraft/medres/
http://Lunar.arc.nasa.gov/archives/images/USA/
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/ap11ann/
kippsphotos/apollo.html

The following images all contained "photographic"
anomalies or inconsistencies. In aS11-40-5903.jpg there is a
strong lighting hot spot very near the subject and the brightness
of the ground fades rapidly into the distance to nothing. The hot
spot is indicative of spot lighting and may not have been caused
by the Sun which illuminates all the ground equally and nor is
it caused by reflections from Lunar Module panels or altered surface

now how did you come to this conclusion? You give no explanation! The more I
study this particular image the more convinced I am that both the "hot spot"
AND the fill-in lighting are reflections off the LM. All the images of the
LM itself show countless bright and/or shiny surfaces that would make great
reflectors. It is probably the main white surface panel that is angled just
right so that it creates the hot-spot, also illuminating the left side of
Aldrin, but not angled enough to shine directly on his face (otherwise we
see the glare in his face mask). Some of the other smaller shiny surfaces of
the LM are likely responsible for the fill-in light at his feet.

characteristics due to the ground being swept by the landing engine
exhaust gases (see section 28 for more about this). Neither is the
hotspot due to a curious phenomena that goes by the name of
"heiligenschein" effect. Lighting has to originate from behind the
observer in order for heiligenschein to be visible but in this case
the Sun is almost 90 degrees to the right of the camera.

here is a clear indication that you have not taken the time to examine this
image for more than a split second. If the sun was 90 degrees to the right
of the camera, then Aldrin's shadow would be 90 degrees to the left right?
Take another look at the image. Surprise, surprise, it's more like 135
degrees to the left of Aldrin! That makes the sun about 45 degrees to the
right and BEHIND Aldrin, just where you said it had to be to create the
"heiligenschein" effect!

snip

I'll bet if you try real hard, you can probably find the flaws yourself in
most of your other criticisms.

TH

"Info Plumber" wrote in message
...
| I never did think much of the "Appolo Hoax" theory that has been
| floating around for decades, but your post intrigued me because
| of the apparent thoroughness and seemingly copious attention to
| detail...

Detailed garbage is, nevertheless, garbage. Some of these theories run to
book length, but they are no better researched than flat-earth proposals or
claims of space alien impregnation.

| MOST of the images showing the lunar horizon show literally dozens
| of very faint white pinpoints scattered randomly, which I am willing
| to bet are stars.

It's far more likely that they are specks of dust or other contaminants on
the transparency or scanner glass.

I consulted a professional photochemist and a professional photometrist
about this. A space suit in sunlight is about 130,000 times brighter per
unit solid angle than the brightest star. Kodak Ektachrome 160 film has an
exposure latitude of about 720:1. To confirm this I had a professional
photographer shoot star fields at night with the same type of film, and it
required 30+ seconds of exposure to register stars. This is roughly
compatible with the theoretical results.

You just can't simultaneously photograph stars and sunlit objects with the
same film.

| now how did you come to this conclusion? You give no explanation!

Not here, but he has elsewhere.

| both the "hot spot" AND the fill-in lighting are reflections
| off the LM.

We know a good portion of the fill on Aldrin himself is from the LM, but the
hot spot behind him is probably not a reflection from the LM. The descent
stage quadrant most likely is covered with H-film, which is flat black.
It's not especially reflective.

The reflective panel at the back of the LM (the aft equipment bay cover) is
facing the wrong direction. I once considered this a plausible explanation,
but the form factors just don't work out.

In general the fill for astronauts' shaded sides comes from the lunar
surface itself.

| ...just where you said it had to be to create the "heiligenschein"
| effect!

Heiligenschein only occurs in down-sun lines of sight. The only example of
heilgenschein in this photograph is the reflection of Armstrong's shadow in
Aldrin's visor. Note how the surface surrounding the shadow of Armstrong's
head is considerably brighter in the visor reflection. That's
heiligenschein. We can do this on earth too, but it's more subtle because
of the atmospheric scatter; it usually goes unnoticed.

You have to be very careful estimating shadow directions in photographs.
The conspiracy theorists use a completely ad hoc guesswork method that just
doesn't work. We have to be careful not to use the same method.

| I'll bet if you try real hard, you can probably find the flaws
| yourself in most of your other criticisms.

This presumes he's interested in finding the flaws. He's had plenty of help
in finding them.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

"Info Plumber" wrote in message
...
| I never did think much of the "Appolo Hoax" theory that has been
| floating around for decades, but your post intrigued me because
| of the apparent thoroughness and seemingly copious attention to
| detail...

Detailed garbage is, nevertheless, garbage. Some of these theories run to
book length, but they are no better researched than flat-earth proposals or
claims of space alien impregnation.

| MOST of the images showing the lunar horizon show literally dozens
| of very faint white pinpoints scattered randomly, which I am willing
| to bet are stars.

It's far more likely that they are specks of dust or other contaminants on
the transparency or scanner glass.

I consulted a professional photochemist and a professional photometrist
about this. A space suit in sunlight is about 130,000 times brighter per
unit solid angle than the brightest star. Kodak Ektachrome 160 film has an
exposure latitude of about 720:1. To confirm this I had a professional
photographer shoot star fields at night with the same type of film, and it
required 30+ seconds of exposure to register stars. This is roughly
compatible with the theoretical results.

You just can't simultaneously photograph stars and sunlit objects with the
same film.

| now how did you come to this conclusion? You give no explanation!

Not here, but he has elsewhere.

| both the "hot spot" AND the fill-in lighting are reflections
| off the LM.

We know a good portion of the fill on Aldrin himself is from the LM, but the
hot spot behind him is probably not a reflection from the LM. The descent
stage quadrant most likely is covered with H-film, which is flat black.
It's not especially reflective.

The reflective panel at the back of the LM (the aft equipment bay cover) is
facing the wrong direction. I once considered this a plausible explanation,
but the form factors just don't work out.

In general the fill for astronauts' shaded sides comes from the lunar
surface itself.

| ...just where you said it had to be to create the "heiligenschein"
| effect!

Heiligenschein only occurs in down-sun lines of sight. The only example of
heilgenschein in this photograph is the reflection of Armstrong's shadow in
Aldrin's visor. Note how the surface surrounding the shadow of Armstrong's
head is considerably brighter in the visor reflection. That's
heiligenschein. We can do this on earth too, but it's more subtle because
of the atmospheric scatter; it usually goes unnoticed.

You have to be very careful estimating shadow directions in photographs.
The conspiracy theorists use a completely ad hoc guesswork method that just
doesn't work. We have to be careful not to use the same method.

| I'll bet if you try real hard, you can probably find the flaws
| yourself in most of your other criticisms.

This presumes he's interested in finding the flaws. He's had plenty of help
in finding them.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

In message , Info Plumber
writes

Subject: (5) No stars are visible in the images, where are they?

Look again Mr. Jones. Look very carefully. Try adjusting the image size. Get
yourself access to a computer monitor with better resolution if necessary.
One thing is very clear. MOST of the images showing the lunar horizon show
literally dozens of very faint white pinpoints scattered randomly, which I
am willing to bet are stars. Only the images with the brightest foregrounds
do not show any stars (which you yourself acknowledge makes perfect sense!).
Furthermore, notice the stars very close to the horizon, some almost
touching it: They are no dimmer than the stars higher in the sky; you could
NEVER see stars this close to the horizon on Earth because of the
atmospheric horizon effect. Remember these images are digitized versions of
analog film. I am quite sure that the original photos would show the stars
even more clearly. Because of the lack of atmosphere, there is little
"dispersion" of light, thereby making it possible to see the stars, even in
the presence of bright foreground objects and sunlight.

I've seen claims like this before, but apparently it's just not possible
to photograph the stars with that exposure, and that agrees with my own
experience - you need an exposure of a second or more to capture stars
at night.
But has anyone tried looking for Jupiter or Venus in Apollo photographs?
Venus at least should be visible, though exposures that close to the Sun
are probably going to have horrible problems with glare.
--
Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

In message , Info Plumber
writes

Subject: (5) No stars are visible in the images, where are they?

Look again Mr. Jones. Look very carefully. Try adjusting the image size. Get
yourself access to a computer monitor with better resolution if necessary.
One thing is very clear. MOST of the images showing the lunar horizon show
literally dozens of very faint white pinpoints scattered randomly, which I
am willing to bet are stars. Only the images with the brightest foregrounds
do not show any stars (which you yourself acknowledge makes perfect sense!).
Furthermore, notice the stars very close to the horizon, some almost
touching it: They are no dimmer than the stars higher in the sky; you could
NEVER see stars this close to the horizon on Earth because of the
atmospheric horizon effect. Remember these images are digitized versions of
analog film. I am quite sure that the original photos would show the stars
even more clearly. Because of the lack of atmosphere, there is little
"dispersion" of light, thereby making it possible to see the stars, even in
the presence of bright foreground objects and sunlight.

I've seen claims like this before, but apparently it's just not possible
to photograph the stars with that exposure, and that agrees with my own
experience - you need an exposure of a second or more to capture stars
at night.
But has anyone tried looking for Jupiter or Venus in Apollo photographs?
Venus at least should be visible, though exposures that close to the Sun
are probably going to have horrible problems with glare.
--
Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

thanks for the feedback!

"Jay Windley" wrote in message
...

"Info Plumber" wrote in message
...
| I never did think much of the "Appolo Hoax" theory that has been
| floating around for decades, but your post intrigued me because
| of the apparent thoroughness and seemingly copious attention to
| detail...

Detailed garbage is, nevertheless, garbage. Some of these theories run to
book length, but they are no better researched than flat-earth proposals
or
claims of space alien impregnation.

| MOST of the images showing the lunar horizon show literally dozens
| of very faint white pinpoints scattered randomly, which I am willing
| to bet are stars.

It's far more likely that they are specks of dust or other contaminants on
the transparency or scanner glass.

I guess I can't offer any kind of a scientific argument, except for three
things:
a. the brightest images don't show these pinpoints.
b. the consistency of size of the pinpoints is what I would expect from
stars of different magnitudes in a sky without an astmosphere. the lack of
any apparent "twinkling: supports this.
c. the random spacing of the points has a kind of "medium-urban moonless
night hazy sky" feeling to it (I realize this is completely subjective!)

I consulted a professional photochemist and a professional photometrist
about this. A space suit in sunlight is about 130,000 times brighter per
unit solid angle than the brightest star. Kodak Ektachrome 160 film has
an
exposure latitude of about 720:1. To confirm this I had a professional
photographer shoot star fields at night with the same type of film, and it
required 30+ seconds of exposure to register stars. This is roughly
compatible with the theoretical results.

You just can't simultaneously photograph stars and sunlit objects with the
same film.

Not even in a vacuum? Doesn't the absence of light dispersion play a
significant role here?

snip
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

TH

thanks for the feedback!

"Jay Windley" wrote in message
...

"Info Plumber" wrote in message
...
| I never did think much of the "Appolo Hoax" theory that has been
| floating around for decades, but your post intrigued me because
| of the apparent thoroughness and seemingly copious attention to
| detail...

Detailed garbage is, nevertheless, garbage. Some of these theories run to
book length, but they are no better researched than flat-earth proposals
or
claims of space alien impregnation.

| MOST of the images showing the lunar horizon show literally dozens
| of very faint white pinpoints scattered randomly, which I am willing
| to bet are stars.

It's far more likely that they are specks of dust or other contaminants on
the transparency or scanner glass.

I guess I can't offer any kind of a scientific argument, except for three
things:
a. the brightest images don't show these pinpoints.
b. the consistency of size of the pinpoints is what I would expect from
stars of different magnitudes in a sky without an astmosphere. the lack of
any apparent "twinkling: supports this.
c. the random spacing of the points has a kind of "medium-urban moonless
night hazy sky" feeling to it (I realize this is completely subjective!)

I consulted a professional photochemist and a professional photometrist
about this. A space suit in sunlight is about 130,000 times brighter per
unit solid angle than the brightest star. Kodak Ektachrome 160 film has
an
exposure latitude of about 720:1. To confirm this I had a professional
photographer shoot star fields at night with the same type of film, and it
required 30+ seconds of exposure to register stars. This is roughly
compatible with the theoretical results.

You just can't simultaneously photograph stars and sunlit objects with the
same film.

Not even in a vacuum? Doesn't the absence of light dispersion play a
significant role here?

snip
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

TH

"Info Plumber" wrote in message
...
|
| thanks for the feedback!

No problem; my pleasure.

| a. the brightest images don't show these pinpoints.

But that's when you'd expect to see them, if they were stars or otherwise
actually in the picture. If the image is bright, the exposure at some point
was pushed toward overexposure.

I know you're giving your subjective opinion. But there are actually
objective ways of studying this. I see the specks you refer to, but they
also show up on the dark parts of the lunar surface, the spacecraft, etc.
Most photographs don't have such large black areas, and so you tend to see
the dust more, just like you tend to pay more attention to lens flares.
There's a real psychological component to interpreting these images.

| You just can't simultaneously photograph stars and sunlit objects
| with the same film.
|
| Not even in a vacuum?

No, not even in vacuum. It's really a matter of difference in brightness.
At shutter speeds of 1/250 and apertures of f/11 you just aren't letting
enough starlight hit the film in order to have any effect.

| Doesn't the absence of light dispersion play a significant
| role here?

Yes, but not in the way you'd imagine.

When you look up into the blue daylit sky on earth, you're seeing sunlight
that has been scattered to your eye from the direction in which you're
looking, even if that direction isn't in the direction of the sun. That
scattered light is enough to drown out starlight.

But that's not the full effect. Just the fact that you're always looking at
something that's brightly lit will affect your visual mechanism so that it's
attuned to high light levels.

The astronauts had a black sky, so the scatter effect is irrelevant. But
they're still looking at sunlit surface, mountains, rocks, each other, the
spacecraft, etc. Even inside the spacecraft they're looking at an
artificially (and sometimes sunlit) cabin. Confronted with those subjects,
your eyes shift into "daylight" mode and "stop down" to the point where
stars don't register.

Photographic film -- especially that used by the astronauts -- has less
"latitude" than your eyes. This means that the difference between the
dimmest thing it can see and the brightest thing it can see is pretty
narrow. Now keep in mind that you don't really change the camera settings
for shooting in sunlight on the moon, from the settings that you would use
in daylight on earth. As I mentioned before, the objects that you want to
photograph on the lunar surface are going to be many thousands of times
brighter than stars. The film just isn't able to correctly expose *both*
the interesting rock you're about to pick up and the stars in the sky.

I asked Ed Mitchell about this. He said that when he looked straight up and
took pains not to let sunlit objects intrude and took time for his eyes to
adjust, he was able to see some stars. I get the same effect on film sets
at night. They put up the big 10,000 watt lights and even when you're out
in the deep desert you can't really see many stars. But when the grips turn
off those lights, within a minute or so you can see really breathtaking
stars. And when I'm photographing under those thousands of watts of light,
I can't get stars to show up on film. But when the lights are off and I can
leave the shutter open for many seconds without completely washing out
something that's being brightly lit, I can get star images.

I had a professional photographer do an experiment to see, at reasonable
settings (f/5.6), how long it took Ektachrome 160 film to register stars,
and with the lens wide open it takes about 30 seconds with the shutter open
before stars start to become visible. There is a factor of film called
"reciprocity failure" that affects film during long exposures. It means if
you have an exposure of several seconds -- as opposed to a fraction of a
second -- the film stops responding and becomes less sensitive to new
accumulations of light. It's just the way the photochemistry works.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

"Info Plumber" wrote in message
...
|
| thanks for the feedback!

No problem; my pleasure.

| a. the brightest images don't show these pinpoints.

But that's when you'd expect to see them, if they were stars or otherwise
actually in the picture. If the image is bright, the exposure at some point
was pushed toward overexposure.

I know you're giving your subjective opinion. But there are actually
objective ways of studying this. I see the specks you refer to, but they
also show up on the dark parts of the lunar surface, the spacecraft, etc.
Most photographs don't have such large black areas, and so you tend to see
the dust more, just like you tend to pay more attention to lens flares.
There's a real psychological component to interpreting these images.

| You just can't simultaneously photograph stars and sunlit objects
| with the same film.
|
| Not even in a vacuum?

No, not even in vacuum. It's really a matter of difference in brightness.
At shutter speeds of 1/250 and apertures of f/11 you just aren't letting
enough starlight hit the film in order to have any effect.

| Doesn't the absence of light dispersion play a significant
| role here?

Yes, but not in the way you'd imagine.

When you look up into the blue daylit sky on earth, you're seeing sunlight
that has been scattered to your eye from the direction in which you're
looking, even if that direction isn't in the direction of the sun. That
scattered light is enough to drown out starlight.

But that's not the full effect. Just the fact that you're always looking at
something that's brightly lit will affect your visual mechanism so that it's
attuned to high light levels.

The astronauts had a black sky, so the scatter effect is irrelevant. But
they're still looking at sunlit surface, mountains, rocks, each other, the
spacecraft, etc. Even inside the spacecraft they're looking at an
artificially (and sometimes sunlit) cabin. Confronted with those subjects,
your eyes shift into "daylight" mode and "stop down" to the point where
stars don't register.

Photographic film -- especially that used by the astronauts -- has less
"latitude" than your eyes. This means that the difference between the
dimmest thing it can see and the brightest thing it can see is pretty
narrow. Now keep in mind that you don't really change the camera settings
for shooting in sunlight on the moon, from the settings that you would use
in daylight on earth. As I mentioned before, the objects that you want to
photograph on the lunar surface are going to be many thousands of times
brighter than stars. The film just isn't able to correctly expose *both*
the interesting rock you're about to pick up and the stars in the sky.

I asked Ed Mitchell about this. He said that when he looked straight up and
took pains not to let sunlit objects intrude and took time for his eyes to
adjust, he was able to see some stars. I get the same effect on film sets
at night. They put up the big 10,000 watt lights and even when you're out
in the deep desert you can't really see many stars. But when the grips turn
off those lights, within a minute or so you can see really breathtaking
stars. And when I'm photographing under those thousands of watts of light,
I can't get stars to show up on film. But when the lights are off and I can
leave the shutter open for many seconds without completely washing out
something that's being brightly lit, I can get star images.

I had a professional photographer do an experiment to see, at reasonable
settings (f/5.6), how long it took Ektachrome 160 film to register stars,
and with the lens wide open it takes about 30 seconds with the shutter open
before stars start to become visible. There is a factor of film called
"reciprocity failure" that affects film during long exposures. It means if
you have an exposure of several seconds -- as opposed to a fraction of a
second -- the film stops responding and becomes less sensitive to new
accumulations of light. It's just the way the photochemistry works.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

Jay,

Thanks for the tutorial! Fascinating stuff!

Terry

"Jay Windley" wrote in message
...

"Info Plumber" wrote in message
...
|
| thanks for the feedback!

No problem; my pleasure.

| a. the brightest images don't show these pinpoints.

But that's when you'd expect to see them, if they were stars or otherwise
actually in the picture. If the image is bright, the exposure at some
point
was pushed toward overexposure.

I know you're giving your subjective opinion. But there are actually
objective ways of studying this. I see the specks you refer to, but they
also show up on the dark parts of the lunar surface, the spacecraft, etc.
Most photographs don't have such large black areas, and so you tend to see
the dust more, just like you tend to pay more attention to lens flares.
There's a real psychological component to interpreting these images.

| You just can't simultaneously photograph stars and sunlit objects
| with the same film.
|
| Not even in a vacuum?

No, not even in vacuum. It's really a matter of difference in brightness.
At shutter speeds of 1/250 and apertures of f/11 you just aren't letting
enough starlight hit the film in order to have any effect.

| Doesn't the absence of light dispersion play a significant
| role here?

Yes, but not in the way you'd imagine.

When you look up into the blue daylit sky on earth, you're seeing sunlight
that has been scattered to your eye from the direction in which you're
looking, even if that direction isn't in the direction of the sun. That
scattered light is enough to drown out starlight.

But that's not the full effect. Just the fact that you're always looking
at
something that's brightly lit will affect your visual mechanism so that
it's
attuned to high light levels.

The astronauts had a black sky, so the scatter effect is irrelevant. But
they're still looking at sunlit surface, mountains, rocks, each other, the
spacecraft, etc. Even inside the spacecraft they're looking at an
artificially (and sometimes sunlit) cabin. Confronted with those
subjects,
your eyes shift into "daylight" mode and "stop down" to the point where
stars don't register.

Photographic film -- especially that used by the astronauts -- has less
"latitude" than your eyes. This means that the difference between the
dimmest thing it can see and the brightest thing it can see is pretty
narrow. Now keep in mind that you don't really change the camera settings
for shooting in sunlight on the moon, from the settings that you would use
in daylight on earth. As I mentioned before, the objects that you want to
photograph on the lunar surface are going to be many thousands of times
brighter than stars. The film just isn't able to correctly expose *both*
the interesting rock you're about to pick up and the stars in the sky.

I asked Ed Mitchell about this. He said that when he looked straight up
and
took pains not to let sunlit objects intrude and took time for his eyes to
adjust, he was able to see some stars. I get the same effect on film sets
at night. They put up the big 10,000 watt lights and even when you're out
in the deep desert you can't really see many stars. But when the grips
turn
off those lights, within a minute or so you can see really breathtaking
stars. And when I'm photographing under those thousands of watts of
light,
I can't get stars to show up on film. But when the lights are off and I
can
leave the shutter open for many seconds without completely washing out
something that's being brightly lit, I can get star images.

I had a professional photographer do an experiment to see, at reasonable
settings (f/5.6), how long it took Ektachrome 160 film to register stars,
and with the lens wide open it takes about 30 seconds with the shutter
open
before stars start to become visible. There is a factor of film called
"reciprocity failure" that affects film during long exposures. It means
if
you have an exposure of several seconds -- as opposed to a fraction of a
second -- the film stops responding and becomes less sensitive to new
accumulations of light. It's just the way the photochemistry works.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org