Having seen pretty much most of the Moon Hoax pages by now, I still now and then find some that I hadn´t seen previously. Such as this one, which I found just a few days ago:

http://www.phenotype.net/wysinwyshg/...39/E1978433403

A sign of how much research the author has done, is that he spells Ralph Rene as "Gene Rene".

At one point, he writes:

"I have been a designer for years now, and my chief tool is Photoshop, a program that has now entered the dictionary as a verb. Touching up images, to try and make them more realistic, is a big part of what I do. As such, as does a classical painter you learn the rules of light shade - in short reality. I believe that the shadows, reflections and light on some of the Moon images do not add up, especially when certain filters are used. The Moon images were a very good Photoshop job, achieved with the paint and glue technology of the 60s."

Ah, yes, the Jack White Syndrome: Buying Photoshop doesn´t make people photo analysts anymore than buying a knife makes you a worldclass surgeon .....

I've got a pencil and paper. Does that make me an photo expert

__________________
Conspiracy Cam

http://www.conspiracy-theories-hoax.com
Find the truth

I've got a bicycle. Maybe I could win the Tour de France?

__________________
"Eternal vigilance is the price of supremacy"
------------Mark Twain

"Women are like Voltron. The more you can hook up, the better it gets."

Love those "hyperbolic" engines!

Interesting too how the author's claims to expertise undermine his whole argument. "Realistic" is not the same as "real". If the author says he uses Photoshop to "touch up" photos to make them more "realistic" (i.e., conforming more to people's expectations), then the hidden premise is that "raw" photographs violate people's expectations.

And that, essentially, is our contention. People trying to compare Apollo photography to Hollywood or professional studio photography, where retouching for "realism" (i.e., expectations) is common, will come up with a whole buch of "anomalies" that are nothing more than "real" rearing its ugly head.

In stage lighting I have to contend constantly with "real" versus "realistic". We have stylized ways of representing various conditions, and audiences come to expect it. "Moonlight", for example, is done with a blue wash and some key lights for contour. None of that has any basis in physics: moonlight is not inherently blue, and you don't get key lights naturally. But it's what the viewer expects. If you gave him a physically accurate light plot for moonlight, it would be disappointing and ineffective.

Skill in interpretation derives from the ability to step out of "realism" and discuss "real". That is, to realize when one is working from intuition. Intuition has a sneaky habit of working unconsciously. I haven't said this for a long time, but the key to photographic interpretation, and interpretation in general, is to learn to be fascinated by the mundane. When you are confident you understand why things happen in normal and uninteresting cases, you can more effectively determine what happens in circumstances that suddenly become extraordinary.

If, for example, you want to interpret the Zapruder film, you have to have spent time analyzing home movies in which a president does not get shot. And few people care to do that, or to watch someone else's home movies at all.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Is that something like an improbability drive?

__________________
Living on Earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip around the Sun.

yeah, what's the fun in that?

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Nah, hyperbolic engines are all talk and no action.

Fred

__________________
"For shame, gentlemen, pack your evidence a little better against another time."
-- John Dryden, "The Vindication of The Duke of Guise" 1684

Bottom Line.

I have now carried out 2 in depth studies of the Apollo images. I engaged the services of a Doctor of imaging and photography and I carried out 2 experiments in which I succesfully recreated those effects seen as anomolous by so called hoax experts.
I'm happy to share how this was done with anyone as well as showing the results of the experiments.

Chris

Chris,

If you'd like them posted on the Education Forum, I'd be happy to do so. If you do decide you would like them posted, and to head off any arguements about "bonafides", I'd appeciate if you could detail the qualifications / experience of those involved in the analysis.

Like Jay quotes: "Facts are stubborn things".

__________________
"For ignorance to reign, all it takes is for knowledgable people to say nothing"

Lonewulf

Like Jay quotes: "Facts are stubborn things".

The historical context of that quote is what I find most interesting. It was, of course, uttered by John Adams. But more importantly, it was said in his opening speech as an attorney in a Boston court where he was defending the British soldiers accused of murder in the Boston Massacre. Adams, it can be argued, was as ardent an American patriot as could be had, and possessed no love for what he felt was tyranny on the part of the Crown. Yet here he set all that aside to deal with the facts of the case, independent of his own biases.

Facts indeed are stubborn things, and we have to give them their due respect even when they don't go the way we want them to go.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

It might be interesting, IF it would consider the technology of the time, the amount of time that it takes, and multiply all those resources against the volume that exists.

I assume you are rerfering to the dubious time and motion study as posted on the Aulis web site.

One must always be careful when dealing with purely statistical evidence where no substantial empirical data of a physical nature exists.
Jack white makes some assumptions which dont hold up. For instance, he claims the astronauts would have to take extra care when taking a panoramic series. This is not the case. The cameras were strapped to thier chests.it was simply a case of clicking the shutter then turning clicking again and so on. The images produced did not need to match at the edges, they merely had to overlap. The hasselblad camera motor allowed for 1 image per second. Allow for 2 seconds and recalculate mr Whites math and see how many extra minutes you come up with. All you have to do is count how many sequential shots there are and deduct them from the whole. I did it for Apollo 11 and it makes a hell of a difference, and thats without attacking the other assumptions mr White makes.
I havent added this to my study because I do not consider it to be a serious enough issue for challenge.

Chris[/quote]

The ideal overlap for Apollo pans was 15 degrees. The astronauts were trained to err on the side of increased overlap, not to try to match the edges of the frame precisely. Their training included practicing guessing how to turn in the right increments. Pilots are a natural at this, because they are already trained to estimate bearings in 30-degree increments: the infamous clock system.

With a 50-degree horizontal field of view, two adjacent shots will encompass 100 degrees of azimuth, or 90 degrees if we "round" the field of view to 45 degrees. The overlap was to ensure that the seams between shots wasn't overly distorted by the lens. (Wide-angle lenses distort the images at the edges.) Take 15 degrees from each of two 45-degree photos and you have 30 degrees of unique information in each frame. With the EL/500 you can take pan in about 20 seconds.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Obviousman..

I'm currently putting the package together...shouldn't be too long before it's finished..
Will let u know when I have spoken to the other guys who were involved.