Enigma on Eagle - more Apollo fakery

"Nathan Jones" wrote in message
...
|
| He is thus falling downwards as the shot is taken.

How fast is he falling? How did you determine that?

| Capturing such a scene nessecitates a reasonably
| fast shutter.

How fast is "reasonably fast"? What did you do to determine that?

| ...in the dark and shady side of the LM the picture

How dark and shady? What did you do to determine how dark and shady it
really was?

| ...would have been grossly underexposed having used 160
| speed film

Please supply your photometry computations that prove this.

| we are subjected to an excellent studio quality peice of
| photographic work!

The picture you are using as a reference is a scan taken from a print that
was "pushed" when it was made. If you do not understand what it means to
"push" a print, I suggest you educate yourself. If you look at the
transparency you will find that the photo is predictably dark.

| Remember that the surface of the Moon is a brown color
| with a reflectance of only seven percent (NASA information).

A 7% geometric albedo is the figure you would use to begin your photometry
calculations that show this is an unacceptable photographic situation.
However, you have merely given the information without performing the
computations that follow from them and connect that information to your
conclusion.

That's like saying a particular boat won't float because sea water has a
certain specific gravity. That information is helpful in computing the
answer, but it is not the answer.

Just how much light is 7% of sunlight?

| There are many photographic shots where the shady side of
| large boulders are totally black (as they should be)

True, and there are just as many -- more in fact -- photographs of large
boulders whose shady sides are easily visible. This is because visibility
in a photograph depends not only on the photometry and optical
characteristics of the scene, but also the settings of the camera. David
Percy shows you only the dark-shaded boulders and implies that this is the
way it "should" be. He does not show you the data that contradict his
conclusion, nor does he explain how the camera settings would affect those
photographs.

In photographing terrain the astronauts used the exposure chart printed on
the placard on the film magazine. With the settings it recommends
(generally compliant with the "sunny 16" rule) we expect many of the shadows
to be underexposed while the sunlit portions of the subject are correctly
exposed. But every student photographer is taught early on how to "open up"
shadows using exposure settings. And we find that Armstring did just this
when he shot Aldrin's egress photographs. And I, as an experienced
photographer, am able to do that at will, even with Apollo and Apollo-like
equipment.

You simply assert that the given exposure settings would have been
insufficient even to do this. No argument yet, just an assertion. The
burden of proof is yours to show the insufficiency, and keep in mind I've
already proved the sufficiency empirically.

| For a consistantly lit environment...

Constant lighting per solid angle does not equate to equal brightness of the
terrain. Why would you even think this?

| ...such as I would expect to find on the Moon

But the problem throughout is that your expectations on nearly every subject
you discuss are wholly ignorant. As you read below, "the universe is not
expected to conform to the expectations of the ignorant."

| ...the photography was stunningly inconsistant, amateurish even.

That's an amazing conclusion for someone who has apparently never held a
serious camera. It would be an easy conclusion to draw for someone who
simply disregarded all the legitimate causes for "inconsistency".

| That's not all, there are even instances where shadows are
| not parallel (they should be)

Utterly absurd. The notion that sun-cast shadows should always appear
parallel is purely an invention of the conspiracy theorists. It has
absolutely no basis in geometry.

Further, the method of measuring shadow direction is yet another invention
of the conspiracy theorists and has no basis in geometry or photogrammetry.
We have performed numerous shadow rectifications for Apollo photographs
according to the real methods and find the results fully consistent with
sunlight photography. David Percy does not understand these methods and so
simply rejects them as sophistry.

David Percy is not a photo analyst and neither are you.

| They even gave one of the astronots matchstick legs (in shadow)
| when in reality they would have been very wide and stubby due
| to the bulkiness of the suits they wore.

David Percy omits to tell you that the photograph was taken on a slope.
Contour and terrain alter the appearance of shadow.

| There are many "errors" in the NASA photography and anyone caring
| to give them some independant thought will be laughing themselves
| off their chair at just how absurd the photography really is.

If by "independent" thought you mean independent of any connection to
science, geometry, photometry, or any of the other well-developed sciences
that govern photograph interpretation, then you are correct. Amazing how
the "absurdities" claimed in Apollo photographs, when examined by people who
actually know what they're talking about, end up showing what science
expects to see. Amazing how the "absurdities" can be rather easily
duplicated by photographers in a natural setting.

| For more excellent information concerning anomalous imagery in
| the Apollo record the reader may visit www.aulis.com and for a
| brief roundup of many of the troublesome questions...

How many of David Percy's conclusion have you personally confirmed? I've
personally examined every one of his example photographs and I have outlined
where in Percy simply omits pertinent evidence, where he disregards reliable
methods of analysis and invents his own, and even where his data contradicts
each other.

David Percy no longer answers questions for readers. This happened after I
asked him why one of the photos in DARK MOON meant to illustrate a point
actually broke one of his own "photo rules". I have examined every one of
his "photo rules" and have shown -- in some cases by mathematical proof, and
always by example -- why the "rule" does not hold.

Make no mistake; David Percy accepts no continuing intellectual
responsibility for his findings. He is trying to make money from gullible
people. And now that his findings are being seriously questioned in the
mainstream, he will no longer face the music. He's made his bundle, and now
it's time for him to fade away into obscurity.

Very soon in Britain, Channel 5 (and Discovery Canada) will air a television
show in which I demonstrate on-camera how to "break" David Percy's photo
"rules" by which he presumes to discredit Apollo photographs. You'll see me
duplicating feats he says are impossible. Percy was invited to defend
himself against that. He declined.

Your champion has cut and run. Are you willing to defend his arguments?

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

Dear Nathan Jones:

"Nathan Jones" wrote in message
...
During Aldrins alleged outing to the Moon it may be observed from the
photography that there is one large and glaring highlight to be seen on
the heel of his boot as he desends the ladder towards the ground. He is
in
the shaded side of the LM and the only lighting source for this is
sunlight returned from the ground. There is no way on Gods Earth (or
Moon)
that a hotspot type of reflection will be caused in such conditions.

Armstrong was in the Sun's light. Armstrong's suit was white. His helment
was reflective.

It
just had to have been point source lighting aimed up at Aldrin.

Or a reflection.

The astronots claimed they never did take any lighting with them to the
Moon so where did all that extra light come from?

The Sun.

Close inspection reveals
that neither of Aldrins feet/boots are on any rungs as he descends the
ladder. He is thus falling downwards as the shot is taken. Capturing such
a scene nessecitates a reasonably fast shutter.

Low gravity means, low acceleration, low velocity, little blurring. Thanks
for proving they were not on the Moon.

David A. Smith

Very soon in Britain, Channel 5

Do you have any idea of the transmission date, I'd quite like to watch?



Dave

"Dave" wrote in message
...
| Very soon in Britain, Channel 5
|
| Do you have any idea of the transmission date, I'd quite like to
| watch?

Unfortunately I don't, and neither did the producer. They felt it would air
before Christmas in the British and Canadian markets, and perhaps in summer
2004 in American markets. When I know the air date it will be posted on my
web site.

Other contributors to the program include Buzz Aldrin and Andrew Chaikin. I
believe they were also going to interview Jim Oberg.

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

"Jay Windley" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote in message
...
| Very soon in Britain, Channel 5
|
| Do you have any idea of the transmission date, I'd quite like to
| watch?

Unfortunately I don't, and neither did the producer. They felt it would
air
before Christmas in the British and Canadian markets, and perhaps in
summer
2004 in American markets. When I know the air date it will be posted on
my
web site.

Other contributors to the program include Buzz Aldrin and Andrew Chaikin.
I
believe they were also going to interview Jim Oberg.



Cheers,

I'll keep an eye out for it in the schedules. Looks pretty interesting.


Dave

Nathan Jones writes:

Remember that the surface of the Moon is a brown color
with a reflectance of only seven percent (NASA information).

Remember that the reflectivity of the white spacesuit being worn by the
astronauts is a lot higher than seven percent, and it wasn't overexposed.

In message ,
writes
Nathan Jones writes:

Remember that the surface of the Moon is a brown color
with a reflectance of only seven percent (NASA information).

Remember that the reflectivity of the white spacesuit being worn by the
astronauts is a lot higher than seven percent, and it wasn't overexposed.

I've kill filed Nathan so I didn't see that, but isn't the Moon
generally grey ? (i.e. no colour at all)
--
Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

"Jonathan Silverlight" wrote
in message ...
|
| I've kill filed Nathan so I didn't see that, but isn't the Moon
| generally grey ? (i.e. no colour at all)

Opinions vary among those who were there, and the photography varies too. A
lot of the Hasselblad photography shows white or grey, but some of it also
shows brown. When the moon is photographed together with the earth using
the same exposures, the moon appears brown.

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

I've kill filed Nathan so I didn't see that, but isn't the Moon
generally grey ? (i.e. no colour at all)
--


I read his post avidly. A bit of laughter in the morning before starting
work puts me in a good mood for the rest of the day!


Dave