Just spotted the following having been added to Aulis. I am quite certain that it is brand new, i.e. less than a week old.

Anyway, check out the following new stuff (it focus a lot on the hatch) - and drive by aulis.com to see if you can spot additional new stuff:

(I wonder if Aulis themselves have made some of the photo analysis. The layout is quite different from the classic Jack White layout)

http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/16orbitsurface.jpg
http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/16lemhighlight.jpg
http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/hatchanomalies1.jpg
http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/hatchanomalies2.jpg
http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/hatchanomalies3.jpg
http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/hatchanomalies4.jpg
http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/hatchanomalies5.jpg
http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/hatchanomalies6.jpg
http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/hatchanomalies7.jpg
http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_5b.html
http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_5c.html
http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_5d.html
http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_26.html

(Added: "The NewScientist Letters to the Editor
Missing moon dust
From George Tetbury
In your article on moon dust you reveal that Apollo 11, 12, 15 and 16 experienced poor visibility while landing (28 May 2005 p.40). But we have photos of the feet of the lander standing on the lunar surface with not a speck of dust on them. If all the dust was blown away during the landing, Neil Armstrong's historic first step would not have left an imprint. What are we to believe?
Glasgow, UK ")

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_5a.html
http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_15.html

ALSO, the "skeleton page" has been changed:

http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html

The following has been added in the bottom:

"Timing Out
Taking the Apollo 11 mission as his example, and the Apollo 11 Lunar Surface Journal (1) consulted by Jack White in this Skeleton article, an 'apollogist' or critic, has posted a long refutation of the above time and motion study. This critic asserts that a shot rate per mission calculated on time available over number of photos taken is inappropriate, since some pictures took longer than others, and that the pictures were taken during the tasks over the whole EVA period.
This is not a point that Jack White is disputing.

Taking the Apollo 11 EVA of 151 minutes, the critic would prefer that the photos are evaluated according to his own calculations which split the EVA into 9 segments of 'about 15 minutes each' (2). Working from the Apollo 11 Lunar Surface Journal, this critic has estimated the number of photos taken for each segment.

According to these criteria there are variable averages of 7.5 minutes (segment two) to 2.5 minutes (segment six) or 31 seconds (segment seven). However, when studying the actual mission elapsed time line we can see that this is not a reflection of the time allowed for photography at all. Nor is the approximate 15 minute segment a true reflection of the time taken by each bundle of tasks that this critic has allocated per segment. Further, while taking Jack White to task for not listing the EVA tasks in the correct order, the critic splits single EVA tasks (such as the flag ceremony) across two separate 'segments' and also splits multiple panorama shots across 'segments'. As it turns out, this critic's method simply demonstrates that at some points in the mission fewer shots were taken than at others.
Not a point Jack White is disputing either.

Nor is the critic's argument the same. He proposes that there was plenty of time for photography since it was spread across the mission. Jack White proposes that given the workload, the number of photographs to be taken, and the conditions under which they were taken, there was not enough time to achieve the standard of photography revealed within the official Apollo record. Not to mention the anomalies!

Workload
Jack White's critic demonstrates that he is in a muddle about what he is trying to prove by recommending the ideal method for ascertaining accurately the time available for photography. While not doing it himself, due to the amount of time it would take, he thinks is necessary to note each shot relative to the mission elapsed timings. Taking this advice to heart and also checking the tasks of each astronaut against their individual EVA timings (3) does indeed take hours.
It also produces the following result:

The Apollo 11 EVA workload was ............2hrs 03 minutes
The time allocated to photography was........... 28 minutes
The average time to point-and-shoot .......121 photos was 13.88 seconds
The average time to point-and-shoot .......122 photos (2) 13.77 seconds

These figures demonstrate two things:

a) The role of astronaut photography in this mission was minimal, and most of it was of the point-and-shoot variety. Which begs the question regarding those carefully composed shots.

b) There is a difference between a time and motion study as per Jack White, demonstrating the time available for photography within a mission, and the dissenter's demonstration of the moment within that mission during which that photography took place.

Using the second demonstration as a response to the first is to merely demonstrate these differences, and saying that "White suggests in his study that the work load was such that there should have been two hours with no photography" is a false premise. Yet this statement turns out to be virtually correct when it comes to evaluating the amount of time required for the EVA workload. It would appear that this critic may have done all these calculations and then muddled his paperwork.

As a result of the foregoing, it is clear that Jack White's conclusion of a reserved time of 31 minutes for the Hasselblad still photography across the Apollo 11 EVA, was virtually spot on. We are down to 28 minutes.

In any event, the crux of the matter is that on average across all missions, one photograph had to have been taken every 50 seconds even if Apollo astronauts were doing nothing but photography while allegedly on the Moon.

NOTES:
(1) Lunar Surface Journal reference: http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html used by White, critic and Aulis editor in this matter of the Apollo 11 EVA.
(2) Critic's posting: 'Bad Apprentice': Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:28 pm on badastronomy.com. His segments are 'approx. 15 mins', his total photos is 122:
1. 0 photos; 2. 20 photos; 3. 2 photos; 4. 4 photos; 5. 17 photos; 6. 25 photos; 7. 29 photos; 8. 19 photos, 9. 6 photos.
(3) The Apollo 11, NASA Mission Report volume 3 (complied from the NASA archives, Edited by Robert Godwin) pp 145/174. "

As I said, more may have been added that I haven´t spotted, so drive by aulis.com and see if you can spot anything else changed.

I am well aware that the quote is longer than allowed, but it has not yet been intercepted by a Google cache and I fear that Aulis may try to cover the flaws in their response b4 Google intercepts the new version of the page. The present Google cache is from June 25 and the above change is not in it. Phil, if you choose to shorten the quote significantly for copyright reasons, it is perfectly OK with me. :P :P

first off, welcome to the board. second, let me just clip my favorite bit of this--
those darn time-consuming anomalies!

__________________
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!"

The Aulis piece "Timing out" is in response to my sending him my study of the A11 mission photography found here:

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...sc&start=0


I have sent my rebuttal to Aulis, but use White's work, my work and the Aulis reply above and have at it....there is a lot of red meat. !

Enjoy and happy hunting!

OK, here's what I love about the Hoax proponents...

They spend ages making a nice webpage full of conclusive arguements. Now, I (in no way any kind of expert on this subject) randomly selected Hatchanomolies1.jpg and cast a 'laymans' eye over their arguements...

1. Black window/blue window.... they say the 2 photos are from similar angles so reflections should match. I say, the photos are from very different angles so the pics are equally likely to be different, conclusion.. their case not proven.

2. Shiny "Thing". They conclude this is a shiny bulbous object, I say it looks like a highlight on a flat, or slightly curved panel.. again case not proven

3 Peculiar distortion (my favourite) They say "is the US decal distorted or not? Oddly, they can be made to match by computer stretching..." Well, Since th photographer has moved to his right in AS11-40-5863, then the decal view is entirely consistent with what I would expct to see as I move to face a slightly concave surface from a more perpendicular 'straight ahead' perspective.

Finally, I work with Adobe Photoshop a lot and I notice their "Match by computer stretching" examply is tiny by comparison. I tried this myself and it is pretty difficult to get any kind of match at all by stretching the image because, not surptisingly, lots of other image elements get distorted in th process.

And another point, maybe irrelevant, if the US decal is in th corner of th image, I might expect some lens distortion on a wide angle lens anyway (I think.. but am happy to be proved wrong on this last point).

OK, erm... rant over. As I say, I'm no expert but do have a brain and this stuff just makes me laugh.

(apologies for any splling errors)

__________________
There we were in the park when suddenly some old lady says I stole her purse..... I chucked the professor at her but she kept coming..... So I had to hit her with this purse I found.
-- Bender

I'm at sea for the next six weeks, so won't have time to re-debunk Jack's fantasy until I get back.

Anyone want to go to The Education Forum and take over where I left off?

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

Lonewulf

My work load is pretty heavy right now but I'm working on a formal rebuttal to Aulis and some emperical examples to rebut Wites shadow on the door nonsense and will post those at the ED forum.

Stay safe out there Evan!