• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Moon landing conspiracies

Eos of the Eons said:
.

Which photos are iffy and why?

http://www.iangoddard.net/moon01.htm
Click to expand...

It's the last stuff about the stencil marks that had me wondering.

All the stuff about angles, shadows and illumination is easily explained.

I don't agree the explanation for the complete disappearance of those stencil lines is properly proven. If you look at the example on the site you've linked to, he has not managed to reproduce the phenomenon fully, and has not explained how (with that degree of overexposure) other detail would not also have been obliterated.

As todd points out, it's not clear what that means (if anything). Possibly elements were positioned in the photo afterwards by montage, though it is difficult to see why anyone would bother. Or even (if they did) how they would be daft enough to miss faking those stencil marks in too.
 
Benguin said:
I don't agree the explanation for the complete disappearance of those stencil lines is properly proven. If you look at the example on the site you've linked to, he has not managed to reproduce the phenomenon fully, and has not explained how (with that degree of overexposure) other detail would not also have been obliterated.
Click to expand...
He didn't *prove* it, by reproducing exactly what happened. But he did show an example of the effect. I don't think the example was that good, because he did it with a camcorder, not with emulsion film which would tend to bloom overexposed areas of the film more. But still, now that you know the effect happens, you're left with a choice between a known effect, and believing that someone doctored the photos in an incredibly expert way, but then screwing up those marks in a ham-fisted way.
 
CurtC said:
He didn't *prove* it, by reproducing exactly what happened. But he did show an example of the effect. I don't think the example was that good, because he did it with a camcorder, not with emulsion film which would tend to bloom overexposed areas of the film more. But still, now that you know the effect happens, you're left with a choice between a known effect, and believing that someone doctored the photos in an incredibly expert way, but then screwing up those marks in a ham-fisted way.
Click to expand...

Nobody seems to have said where exactly those stencil marks originate. The program says they were 'etched onto the camera', but I'm not sure that is an informed comment.

They may have been on a screen just over the film bed, or on the film itself, or on the back of the lens (unlikely). Certainly stretching a hair across the front of a camcorder lens is not very close in terms of comparison.

I've pushed hich speed film myself where the lighting was difficult and contrast high, and white areas can 'bloom' out, the edges go indistinct and the detail in that area is characteristically effected.

In this case (with stencil markings) the black comes from light obstructions very close to the surface of the film, it takes a great deal of luminosity to remove those, far greater than is taken to remove most of the detail on the surface in question. More akin to hair or dust on a slide in a projector or on the bed of a flatbed scanner.

I wonder if someone may have done some very expert 'burning' at print time to improve foreground underexposure? ... as that could do this, and as it is not in anyway a fraudulent exercise no-one would think to retouch the missing part of the stencil. Pushing like that (with very detailed margins) would be incredibly time-consuming, but I suppose pictures like this would have merited it. I'm speculating as I know longer have access to a darkroom to experiment with that!
 
That's the link with the answers ... thanks for that.

It's very clear from the (higher quality) images shown on that site that conspiracy theorists are either using specially selected poor ones, or have post processed them to exaggerate the effect.

What I saw there is entirely consist with normal photography, as in the cross hairs do not disappear, they merely loose definitiion in the same way the surrounding detail does on that area.

'Scuse my scepticism, but the other images just didn't work with the explanations given!

It also makes more sense when he talks about fidicials/reticules. I'm familiar with that, and supposedly, photogrammetry. With a couple of reference points, the photos could be used to calculate elevations on the surface, they don't necessarily need to be in stereoscopic pairs to perform that function.

Whether they bothered to get the reference points to do this is, I suppose, a moot point.

Thanks again.

I withdraw my reservations about the photos!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom