AS14-66-9306....

[Aemilius]

Hey ArMaP....

Reflections on the lens....

No, it can't be reflections from the lens. Take a look at the camera configuration....

The reseau plate is fitted to the back of the camera housing and the 60mm/500mm Lens is fitted to the front. We can immediately see that the distance between the rear of the 60mm/500mm Lens fitted to the front of the camera housing and the reseau plate fitted at the back of the housing is at least 1.5 inches. Even if the minimally reflective camera lens could somehow act as a mirror, the rear of the 60mm/500mm Lens is clearly too far away from the reseau plate to account for the upper darker distorted reticles seen hovering just a millimeter or so above the image surface in the NASA photograph....

lens flare....

No, it can't be lens flare. Lens flare has exclusively to do with a bright lights ablilty to overcome the minimal reflectivity of a camera lens and cause ghost images of the light source to appear in a photograph....

A flat black opaque object cannot partake of the same mechanism as a bright light does in creating lens flare. In other words, no matter how close or far away from the film or image surface a flat black opaque object is, and no matter how intensely a flat black opaque object is illuminated (sunlight, arc light, laser, nuclear explosion, supernova), it will not create lens flare in a photographic image....

 

the reseau plate and its shadow....

No, it can't be the reseau plate and its shadow. The schematically represented plane described by the configuration of the upper darker distorted reticles is inconsistent with reticles etched on a rigid glass plate casting a shadow....

If the film surface is flat and the reticle is etched on a rigid glass plate, both the etched reticle and the shadow it casts will appear flat and symmetrical regardless of changes in lighting....

If the film surface is distorted and the reticle is etched on a rigid glass plate, the reticle etched on the glass plate will appear flat and symmetrical and the shadow it casts on the film surface will appear distorted regardless of changes in lighting....

If the film surface is not distorted and the reticle has been printed on a thin flexible clear sheet of plastic (transparency overlay) that has become distorted by lifting up and away from the image surface, the shadow cast on the image surface will appear flat and symmetrical and the upper darker reticle will appear distorted regardless of changes in lighting....

And that's precisely what we have here, a transparency overlay that has lifted up and away from the image surface, as clearly indicated by simple experiment....

The defect in the Nasa image and the image created by a transparency overlay having lifted up and away from the image surface are characteristically indistiguishable....

The entire formation can be replicated well enough to confirm observations and arrive at an empirically verifiable conclusion....

The fact that the light source used to replicate the defect seen in the Nasa photograph was located directly above the distorted reticular formation means that two distinct light sources were needed for the production of the image. In other words, there's one light source required for all the shadows in the image of the LEM and surrounding landscape, and another light source required for the shadows being cast by the distorted reticular formation in the upper left hand corner of the image.

In light of the above, the haze encircling the whole distorted reticular formation is revealed to be the signature of the focussed spotlight that must have been placed directly above said formation (just as it was in my photographic replication of the complete formation) in order to create this particular effect.

The photograph AS14-66-9306, and by extension the series it's part of, was not taken on the Moon.

[ArMaP]

Hey ArMaP....
No, it can't be reflections from the lens. Take a look at the camera configuration....

I was talking about all the things I see on the photo, as you didn't say what you're talking about and I hate riddles.

My mention of "reflection on the lens" was related to the light streaks to the left and above the Sun.

No, it can't be lens flare. Lens flare has exclusively to do with a bright lights ablilty to overcome the minimal reflectivity of a camera lens and cause ghost images of the light source to appear in a photograph....

In the same way, when I said "lens flare" I was talking about the obvious lens flare visible on the photo, as I didn't know what your'e talking about.

No, it can't be the reseau plate and its shadow. The schematically represented plane described by the configuration of the upper darker distorted reticles is inconsistent with reticles etched on a rigid glass plate casting a shadow....

If the film surface is flat and the reticle is etched on a rigid glass plate, both the etched reticle and the shadow it casts will appear flat and symmetrical regardless of changes in lighting....

If, and that's where your whole idea fails, in my opinion, as the film, specially of that size, would be very difficult to keep perfectly flat.

If the film surface is distorted and the reticle is etched on a rigid glass plate, the reticle etched on the glass plate will appear flat and symmetrical and the shadow it casts on the film surface will appear distorted regardless of changes in lighting....

That depends on how the film is distorted, but that's what I think we see on the photo.

If the film surface is not distorted and the reticle has been printed on a thin flexible clear sheet of plastic (transparency overlay) that has become distorted by lifting up and away from the image surface, the shadow cast on the image surface will appear flat and symmetrical and the upper darker reticle will appear distorted regardless of changes in lighting....

The "upper darker reticle"? Are you speaking about a specific mark or all marks?

First of all I think you should start by identifying the marks on the reseau plate, so we can know which are the marks and which are the shadows.

[zorgon]

....Your thoughts?

Well other than the marks this is one of those photos where the sun is behind so the lander should be in black shadow yet it's amazingly bright.  They so try to tell us that it's reflected light from the surface but I never bought into that.

Whether or not they went to the moon I have always assumed they created SOME images for publicity shots on Earth on a set to publish in Life Magazine etc  in case they didn't get any good ones up there.  The perfectly posed pro photographer images we see are always perfect shots

Were the Astronauts pro photographers as well? Or just damn lucky to get so many perfect shots.

It is this same thingkiing that leads me to assume the reason the Apollo images all have a gray moon surface and a black sky is because the publicity shots were done BEFORE they knew what it looked like.

Now we have already proven that NASA has manipulated images to remove the color we know is on the moon surface...even ArMaP was there when we did that

So this image to me says this was a publicity shot with the crosses added with an overlay that was done sloppily likely with a plastic overlay that was bent opposed to the glass plate on the cameras

In any case this is a great sample.  Should give the Apollo huggers a workout

[zorgon]

Two points

1) I had a Hassalblad camera with 70mm cartridges that I loaded myself from roles of film stock (was a lot cheaper and gave more pictures per load)  The film was wound very tight and I never once experience bent or warped film. The amount of film distortion you would need to explain this is in my opinion (based on years of use of that camera) is that it is not possible. The film feeds through channels that keep it tight (bottom image shows the frame that holds the film) It is very tight film   



2) I have seen many Apollo images  why do we not see cross shadows on all of them?


Oddly enough when I looked for the Hassalblad cartridge I found THIS image listed. There is a whole series of them. Notice anything?




Compare that to the NASA publicity photo I mentioned earlier

[starwarp2000]

Apollo 14 Mission Photography

Apollo 14 carried a number of cameras for collecting data and recording various aspects of the mission. Two 70-millimeter still cameras with multiple lenses, one 16-millimeter camera with four lenses, and the Lunar Topographic camera were carried on the command module. The landing module carried two 70-millimeter cameras with 60-millimeter lenses, two 16-millimeter cameras (one with a 10-millimeter lens and one with a 5-millimeter lens), and the 35-millimeter lunar surface close-up stereoscopic camera.

70-millimeter stills Hasselblad EL Camera. This camera, which was carried aboard the command module, featured a motor-driven mechanism, powered by two sealed nickel-cadmium batteries, that advanced the film and cocked the shutter whenever the camera was activated.

70-millimeter stills Hasselblad Data Camera. The three electronically powered Hasselblad data cameras that were carried on the mission featured semiautomatic operation. Two 60-millimeter-lens Hasselblad cameras were carried on the LM, and an 80-millimeter camera was carried on the CM. The operating sequence was initiated by squeezing a trigger mounted on the camera handle. A 1-centimeter reseau grid was set in front of the 60-millimeter lens image plane to provide photogrammetric information in the analysis of the photography. The LM cameras were bracket-mounted on the front of the LM astronauts' EVA suits.

16-millimeter Maurer Data Acquisition Camera (DAC). Apollo 14 carried three Maurer Data Acquisition Cameras (DAC), one in the CM and two in the LM. The cameras were used for recording engineering data, continuous-sequence terrain photography, and lunar surface photography. The CM camera had lenses of 5-millimeter, 10-millimeter, 18-millimeter, and 75-millimeter focal lengths. One of the LM cameras was fitted with a 10-millimeter wide-angle lens, and one contained a battery power pack using a 5-millimeter lens. Accessories included a right-angled mirror, a power cable, a sextant adapter, and a CM boresight window bracket. The Mauer cameras weighed 2.8 pounds each, with a 140-foot film magazine attached. They had frame rates of 1, 6, and 12 frames per second automatic and 24 frames per second semiautomatic at all lens focal lengths, and shutter speeds of 1/60, 1/125, 1/500, and 1/1000 seconds, also at all lens focal lengths.

35-millimeter Lunar Surface Closeup Stereoscopic Camera. This camera, which was carried on the LM Modular Equipment Storage Assembly (MESA), was designed for the highest possible resolution for a stereo pair area with a flash illumination and fixed distance. Photography was accomplished by holding the camera on a walking stick against the object to be photographed. The camera was powered by four nickel-cadmium batteries that operated the motor-drive mechanism and an electronic flash strobe light.

Hycon Lunar Topographic Camera.This electrically operated camera, which was carried aboard the CM, was a modified KA-7A Aerial Reconnaissance Camera, which, when used, was mounted in the crew access hatch window. A remote control box and interconnecting cable provided automatic mode or strip photography or manual mode for single frames. Variable Forward Motion Compensation (FMC) allowed for the spacecraft orbit motion. For each frame exposed, a small clock showing the day and time was simultaneously exposed to the side of the frame. This photography was intended to support the objective of obtaining high-resolution photography of future landing sites and areas of scientific interest. A camera malfunction partway into the mission caused the shutter to operate continually. This resulted from a transistor failure caused by a sliver of aluminum that became lodged and shorted the system on the shutter pulse switching circuit. Also, the lack of a continuous pulse, which activated the focal plane shutter, caused an intervalometer anomaly resulting in multiple exposure of the same scene. In addition, this same region of the film was overexposed approximately two stops.

Lunar Surface Photography

Four hundred and seventeen photographs were taken on the lunar surface with the Hasselblad Electric Data camera during the Apollo 14 mission. Many of these photographs were used to document surface activities. Fifteen panoramas, consisting of 275 photographs, were taken for major station location and general geologic documentation. Forty-nine pictures were taken for sample documentation, and 27 pictures were taken to document ALSEP deployment, and 17 stereoscopic surface photographs were taken with the Close-up Stereoscopic Surface Camera. The remaining pictures were of miscellaneous targets of opportunity.

Summary

The Apollo 14 crew returned 1328 frames of 70-millimeter photography and 15 exposed magazines of 16-millimeter film. The lunar topographic camera (LTC) malfunctioned and only 193 usable photographs were recovered from the two rolls of 5-inch film. A total of 17 stereopairs of lunar surface rocks and soil was taken on the Apollo 14 mission. The close-up stereopairs will enable further study by those interested in lunar soil formation, impact phenomena, and soil mechanics. The orbital photographic and scientific experiments conducted by the command module pilot simultaneously with the surface exploration included the gegenschein photography and bootstrap photography using the Hycon and Hasselblad cameras. The bootstrap photography was accomplished using the 70-millimeter Hasselblad camera with a 500-millimeter lens after the failure of the Hycon lunar topographic camera. By using the crewman-optical-alignment-sight maneuver to hold the camera on target, some good stereo photographs of the Descartes landing area were obtained. Three passes were made over the Descartes area to obtain stereo strips covering the region.

[Aemilius]

Hi ArMaP....

I get that it's your opinion that it was perhaps a mechanical problem with the camera that may have caused the observed anomaly/defect (even though you don't provide any empirically verifiable support for it), but I remain convinced the empirically verifiable photographic analog model I produced....

....that accurately reflects real world conditions, is consistent with physical principles, and is characteristically indistinguishable from the observed anomaly/defect firmly supports my conclusion and clearly shows it to be the result of a faulty transparency overlay and spotlight being applied to an already existing image....

I think zorgon's on the right track. Even if all the photography was shown to have been staged though, it still wouldn't absolutely prove they didn't go to the Moon. I know they sent a bunch of really big rockets up there and for all I know the true purpose of the mission (which may well have included the Moon) may still be classified.... something tells me that's the case.

At any rate, I think I can scratch the Moon Hoax thing off my list.... thanks for all the comments.

[ArMaP]

Hi ArMaP....

I get that it's your opinion that it was perhaps a mechanical problem with the camera that may have caused the observed anomaly/defect (even though you don't provide any empirically verifiable support for it), but I remain convinced the empirically verifiable photographic analog model I produced....

Yes, it's my opinion, in the same way your opinion is your opinion.

But not really a mechanical problem, but the fact that film is not hard like a glass sheet and can have slight changes in its flatness.

As for "empirically verifiable support" for what I say, I thought what I said was obvious enough for anyone that knows glass and film, but I will post a photo when I have the time to replicate physically what I am saying.

The model you provided, without definition of what are the fixed marks and the shadows means nothing, as you may be interpreting some of the shadows on the photo as the marks and vice-versa.

....that accurately reflects real world conditions, is consistent with physical principles, and is characteristically indistinguishable from the observed anomaly/defect firmly supports my conclusion and clearly shows it to be the result of a faulty transparency overlay and spotlight being applied to an already existing image....

Once again, without definition of what are the marks and what are the shadows that demonstration is irrelevant.

I think zorgon's on the right track. Even if all the photography was shown to have been staged though, it still wouldn't absolutely prove they didn't go to the Moon. I know they sent a bunch of really big rockets up there and for all I know the true purpose of the mission (which may well have included the Moon) may still be classified.... something tells me that's the case.

I have seen some photos altered to look (supposedly) better in some NASA sites, like the ones Zorgon posted above, all related more to public relations than to science (and that's one of the reasons I use the science related sites), but I have never seen any sign that the photos were not taken on the Moon.

At any rate, I think I can scratch the Moon Hoax thing off my list.... thanks for all the comments.

[Pimander]

In any case this is a great sample.  Should give the Apollo huggers a workout

The astronauts not being able to remember they could see stars outside low Earth orbit still rings alarm bells for me.  It does not add up to me. 

[Aemilius]

 

Yes, it's my opinion, in the same way your opinion is your opinion.

No. Unless I missed something, all you have so far is a half baked "opinion" based on an as yet completely unsupported speculative assumption of some sort that you seem to believe explains the defect seen in the photograph. I have (whether you choose to recognize it or not) an empirically verifiable real world analogical model that immediately exhibits several unique features/shared properties with the defect seen in the NASA photograph (AS14-66-9306) purportedly taken on the Moon.

A solid one to one behavioral correspondence provably exists between my photographic replication (source system) and the defect seen in the NASA photograph (target system) that firmly supports my conclusion based on a simple well known optical mechanism (the casting of an ordinary shadow), with or without definitions.... not the same as your "opinion".   

But not really a mechanical problem, but the fact that film is not hard like a glass sheet and can have slight changes in its flatness.

If that were true, that the film became distorted for some reason resulting in an observable "change of flatness", the distortion of the film would not have just selectively affected only the shadows of the reticles, we would also see similar distortion of the "satellite dish" to one degree or another that's in the same region as the defect in the image, but we don't....

And we don't see any similar distortion of the "stabilizing thrusters" that are in the same region as the defect in the image either....

In fact, the entire photograph (including the flat symmetrical shadows being cast by the darker upper distorted reticles) is in pristine focus and shows no sign of any "change of flatness". That would all indicate that the film in the magazine was advancing normally. No distortion of the photographic image itself (or even the flat symmetrical shadows being cast by the upper darker distorted reticles) means no distortion of the film.

The model you provided, without definition of what are the fixed marks and the shadows means nothing, as you may be interpreting some of the shadows on the photo as the marks and vice-versa.

....without definition of what are the marks and what are the shadows that demonstration is irrelevant.

Piffle. Starting with my replication....

....I know the black reticle (A) printed on the transparency overlay (C) above is casting the lighter gray shadow (B) on the board (D) below....

Which clearly establishes....

A - Upper darker reticle printed on transparency overlay casting shadow.

B - Lower lighter shadow cast by reticle printed on transparency overlay.

And from that we get....

Then naturally it follows....

I have seen some photos altered to look (supposedly) better in some NASA sites, like the ones Zorgon posted above, all related more to public relations than to science (and that's one of the reasons I use the science related sites), but I have never seen any sign that the photos were not taken on the Moon.

Hah! Yeah, I've heard that one before. It's the old "I know some of them were faked, but not the ones I believe are real." sort of thing. Oh man, that's a good one! 

As for "empirically verifiable support" for what I say, I thought what I said was obvious enough for anyone that knows glass and film, but I will post a photo when I have the time to replicate physically what I am saying.

Well, you may think it's all very obvious, but to me your "opinion" so far (as outlined above) has more holes in it than Swiss Cheese. I think now I'll just wait to see if you can actually follow through with posting an empirically verifiable photographic replication that supports anything of what you're saying (I already know you can't do it).

Until then, I'm sure you won't mind if I continue to hold the Analog Target System of Analysis (a handmaiden of the Scientific Method) in higher regard than your "opinion".

Good luck.

[Aemilius]

Hi Pimander....

The astronauts not being able to remember they could see stars outside low Earth orbit still rings alarm bells for me.  It does not add up to me. 

Right.... totally agree.

[zorgon]

The astronauts not being able to remember they could see stars outside low Earth orbit still rings alarm bells for me.  It does not add up to me. 

That one bothered me too as it did Sir Patrick Moore, famous UK Astronomer Royal who asked them that



It is especially odd since NASA itself shows us how many stars we would see on Earth if there was no atmosphere

If you could turn off the atmosphere's ability to scatter overwhelming sunlight, today's daytime sky might look something like this ... with the Sun surrounded by the stars of the constellations Taurus and Gemini.



http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap070621.html

And even more so when ISS astronauts tell us the stars are awesome  Here is a piture in earth orbit  You can clearly see Orion

[SerpUkhovian]

Stars are clearly visible by satellites in orbit.  Here is a common picture taken daily of the North Pole.



more pictures at:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

[Pimander]

Z is right.  Watch this video members and then tell me the Apollo story is credible!

[Somamech]

Pim/Z that is a great video. 

How anyone that has traveled to a terrestrial body as a world first can sit down and speak as they do in that interview is really stretching the imagination of how humans work when they have achieved something grand. LOL

My belief is that If those guy's went to the Moon... they sure as hell didn't go via a big gas bag chemical rocket and were more taken there as guest's... which would explain their rather odd behavior from the time the event occurred to now.       

[ArMaP]

No. Unless I missed something, all you have so far is a half baked "opinion" based on an as yet completely unsupported speculative assumption of some sort that you seem to believe explains the defect seen in the photograph. I have (whether you choose to recognize it or not) an empirically verifiable real world analogical model that immediately exhibits several unique features/shared properties with the defect seen in the NASA photograph (AS14-66-9306) purportedly taken on the Moon.

Regardless of how many words we use, an opinion is just an opinion, otherwise it would be a fact.

If that were true, that the film became distorted for some reason resulting in an observable "change of flatness", the distortion of the film would not have just selectively affected only the shadows of the reticles, we would also see similar distortion of the "satellite dish" to one degree or another that's in the same region as the defect in the image, but we don't....

And we don't see any similar distortion of the "stabilizing thrusters" that are in the same region as the defect in the image either....

You can see that the distortion doesn't affect the whole crosses in the same way, and the affected areas don't have any visible features on the photo, so we cannot really see if those areas are slightly out of focus when compared with the rest of the photo.

In fact, the entire photograph (including the flat symmetrical shadows being cast by the darker upper distorted reticles) is in pristine focus and shows no sign of any "change of flatness". That would all indicate that the film in the magazine was advancing normally. No distortion of the photographic image itself (or even the flat symmetrical shadows being cast by the upper darker distorted reticles) means no distortion of the film.

That's where I think you're wrong, as the non-distorted crosses are the marks, not the shadows.

Whatever is projecting the shadow should appear better defined than the shadow itself, that's one of the reasons why I think that the well defined, thin and straight crosses are the reseau plate marks and the slightly more blurred, distorted crosses are the shadows.

Piffle. Starting with my replication....

For some reason I can't see that image, is it this one?

....I know the black reticle (A) printed on the transparency overlay (C) above is casting the lighter gray shadow (B) on the board (D) below....

Which clearly establishes....

A - Upper darker reticle printed on transparency overlay casting shadow.

B - Lower lighter shadow cast by reticle printed on transparency overlay.

And from that we get....

Then naturally it follows....

Are you basing your theory on the colour of the marks?

Hah! Yeah, I've heard that one before. It's the old "I know some of them were faked, but not the ones I believe are real." sort of thing. Oh man, that's a good one! 

It's not, it's my opinion, based on the facts that I saw the altered photos and the changes were noticeable.

Well, you may think it's all very obvious, but to me your "opinion" so far (as outlined above) has more holes in it than Swiss Cheese. I think now I'll just wait to see if you can actually follow through with posting an empirically verifiable photographic replication that supports anything of what you're saying (I already know you can't do it).

I'm sure I cannot do it exactly like what we see on the Apollo photos, as I don't have a camera like those and the same film to compare it, and if you are using the colour to distinguish the reseau plate marks from their shadows only by taking a photo will anyone be able to replicate the situation, as what we see is the photo of the shadow, not the shadow itself.

If you are doing the comparison by the shape of the crosses then I can replicate what I am saying.

Until then, I'm sure you won't mind if I continue to hold the Analog Target System of Analysis (a handmaiden of the Scientific Method) in higher regard than your "opinion".

I don't mind, even if I don't know what the "Analog Target System of Analysis" is or what "handmaiden" means.

Good luck.

Thanks.