Moon hoax - not seen this debunked?

Travis said:
When I was looking through the surface journal it seemed to me that they took the photographs in bursts. They'd document everything clicking off photos as fast as the mechanism would let them and then get on with what they were doing.
Click to expand...

Like most photographic documentary work. White seems to think they were having some kind of quota "Damn, can't pick up rocks, have to set camera and take this minute's photo!!"
 
The other thing Jack does is subtract all the time allotted to various experiments and other tasks. This errs two ways:

First, as one astronaut is installing a power unit and extending the legs on a sensor, the other is standing there taking pictures of it.

Second, the time estimates NASA gives and allots for these experiments includes the ongoing documentation. Taking pictures was not secondary to the task. It was integral. In a specific case, taking pictures of samples in situ was a necessary part of collecting geological samples. The geologists who would analyze those samples later needed to see what kind of formation they came out of.


But there is an entirely different and quite conclusive answer to Jack White's time-for-photographs nonsense. Every second of the missions was voice-recorded, most of the missions were captured on video, and large parts were captured on 16mm DAC footage.

If you go to something like the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, you can read the transcript (and follow along in most places with RealAudio clips linked from that site) and the moment the majority of the pictures is taken is documented there. Which can be compared directly to the contact prints.

For the video portions, the exercise is even more clear. You can witness the taking of each photograph, and you can with some work reconstruct the angles and compare to the actual photograph taken at that moment.
 
Travis said:
When I was looking through the surface journal it seemed to me that they took the photographs in bursts. They'd document everything clicking off photos as fast as the mechanism would let them and then get on with what they were doing.
Click to expand...

I'm no professional to be sure, but in my amateur efforts that's certainly my experience. If you have film to burn you never shoot anything once, you do it three or four times. Especially true when you're either moving and want to be sure you get at least one framed well, or aren't sure about focus or exposure so you take a couple, change it a notch and take a couple more. These days I come back from an airshow with 1,200+ images, of which maybe 3/4 could be chucked because they're almost identical repeats.
 
Heh. I once shot a rehearsal on my digital -- I needed a record of the choreography in order to create lighting cues. I set it to one of the smallest file sizes and snapped away something like once a minute. Two hours later I dumped the two-hundred-odd frames into a slide show and ran that on my laptop as I wrote.

I use the auto-bracket a lot these days. Three shots every time I hit the button. And then I'll do that two or three times with just slight changes of position. And I'm not a pro -- just taking texture references or recording steps in creating an Instructable to upload.

Large parts of the magazines from the Apollo program EVA's look like that. There will often be three or four in a row that look almost identical. And then there's (which Jack also did not record) a non-trivial number of pictures of boots, and end-of-roll shots taken in quick succession before a magazine change.
 
Jack White never met a photograph that wasn't faked.

No matter how innocuously or tenuously associated with the JFK assassination any photograph may be, if Jack White looked at it, he would find some "anomaly" and declare it a fake.

Didn't White say the LRO photos of the Apollo landing sites were faked because NASA left the LMs on the surface. He had to be told those were the Descent Modules and the astronauts returned to the CSM in the Ascent Module. He was 42 years old when Apollo 11 landed! How does a grown up miss that?!?
 
Last edited:
Well, remember this is the Jack White who couldn't tell one side of the LM from the other.

First he had to be told that the Rover was stored on the SIDE of the LM, not inside.

Then he started pointing at the MESA and making noises about the Rover not being where it was supposed to be. Various people attempted to point out he was looking at the wrong quadrant.

Eventually Jack sort of admitted that...he claimed that NASA changed either where they stored the Rover or where they claimed to store the Rover just to throw off "Researchers" like him.

Seriously, the man has severe problems in understanding a 3d world. Over and over again on his "Studies" page are apparent problems that only exist if you can't think in 3d; that can be solved simply by shifting the POV to one side or rotating the LM or even just moving closer in or further away.

One that sticks out -- just because it is a mildly clever problem -- is a pair of shots showing LM, flag, and high gain antenna. In one picture the flag is to the outside of the trio. In the other the flag is in the middle. To Jack this is an impossibility. If you add DEPTH, however (aka the three elements are arranged in a triangle) it becomes resolvable.

And if you do so, you notice that you have to circle the LM by a certain number of degrees to create the proper new relationship. Which becomes a prediction; with the LM turned, you should be seeing the hatch and ladder in a different relationship. Which...you do. The pictures are entirely consistent with a single 3d universe.
 
I've wandered into "that" forum where he posts, and I've wondered . . .

is he for real??

I have a hard time believing an adult could be that dense.
 
I can only imagine what would be said if Bean found that timer when he first looked for it.
 
Don't forget that he made claims about the fiducials and that they were printed on an overlay. Apart from being made aware of the illogic of his claim, he was shown the explanation for the effect from the Hasselblad company themselves.

He promptly dismissed them as 'complicit' in the hoax and continued on his merry way.

This is why I think he is deliberately deceptive and downright dishonest. One could understand ego not permitting you to admit an error, but when he has had shown to him so many conclusive mistakes to which he refuses to admit (the MESA quad 1 / quad 4 is just one), that becomes deception... especially when he claims (see my tag line below)
 
When I started looking at the "moon hoax" stuff, wondering if it might actually be the case, it was Jack White's photo *cough* analysis that convinced me that HBs were idiots.
 
It's surprising the Moon Hoax people haven't gone the same way as the Truthers; each one calling all the others disinfo agents. Perhaps it is because they are less organized. Often what you will see is an individual, who opens up debate by declaring he disagrees with and is not even particularly familiar with the usual Moon Hoax arguments, but came entirely independently through the power of his own mind to a reasonable and logical reason why it all had to be a hoax.

At least, that's what they say. Except that it turns out they know next to nothing about the program other than the lies promoted by the older and more established hoax believers, and their reasonable and logical reason is "no stars in the pictures."
 
Where is Patrick? i suppose that he has to go bed early now that school has started.
 
Honestly, I can take "no stars" yammer. But if one more person shows up in the usual places with a lengthy calculation on the John Young jump salute, attempting to prove it wasn't exactly 1/6 G (and, thus, the missions were obviously faked on Mercury...) I think I may scream.
 
nomuse said:
By the by, Jack is certainly not a modern studio photographer. I attended a lecture and demonstration; in the half hour of the demonstration they took over 200 frames -- 20-30 frames per se-up and a over a dozen set-ups.

In one way shooting on the Moon WAS like studio photography. Most studio photographers don't have to haul out the light meter with each setup. They know from trial and error the best exposure settings with the lights they are using. The lights don't change from day-to-day, so all they really have to do is adjust a little for the subject.

On the Moon, there is no weather, no atmosphere, no seasons. Just raw sunlight, at an easily calculated angle to the ground. From moment to moment or from day to day the exposure settings remain essentially the same. Now throw in film with a good latitude and a developer that is willing to push and pull and remember you are trying to capture a record of events, not a dresden-doll complexion...
Click to expand...
.
The Apollo missions were on the sunlit side of the moon. 1 over the film ASA at f16 gets good photographs. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom