Hi,
I have had a great interest in the lunar conspiracy for many years and thought I would write something on here after looking around on Nasa's site recently. I came across a few pictures that I found a little strange and wondered if anybody could answer my questions?

This first picture shows Aldrin coming down the ladder - why is there a corona around the Sun if there is no atmosphere on the Moons surface?



The actual corona even looks like it was done in a paint package to me. Also, you'll notice that Aldrin is in intense light in the above picture, even though he is shielded from the Sun because the LEM is between him and it. However in the picture below, having taken a few steps down the ladder, he is now in complete shadow? Why does the 'United States' sign also look like it has moved? The photographer looks like he's taking the picture in the same position to me if you look at the other features in both pictures. Another thing that has struck me is where have the reticles gone on these pictures? The camera which took the lunar photos was fitted with a glass plate with these crosses on them internally so how can these photographs not show a single one - either in the light or dark areas of the pictures?

This simply does not add up. If you were at the top of your house cleaning the windows and the Sun was the other side of the house, you would be in shadow whether you were at the top of the ladder of at the bottom, because the house would stop the Sunlight from hitting you. Why is it any different in the examples above, especially when you consider that Aldrin in the first picture is actually surrounded by the LEM as he emerges from it?

Also consider this piece of footage at http://www.solarviews.com/raw/apo/apo11f.mov we can clearly see that Armstrong goes down the ladder in very bright light - even though he is stepping down into shadow caused by the LEM? very odd

But lets look again at another 'official' Apollo 11 photo taken around the same time. Miraculously the crosses reappear on the picture below.


Why is there such a vast difference in colour between these three pictures? They all come from official Nasa sites and from the same reel of film?

Secondly, why are these pictures taken within the LEM out of focus?


A telephoto lens wasn’t actually used on any cameras taken inside the LEM to my knowledge? I checked the journal earlier today on Nasa's site and it states that all cameras with telephoto lenses were left on the command module.

Again here is another example of a picture supposedly taken with a lens set on infinity and yet the horizon is blurred?



and again


I went to a lecture by Marcus Allen last night near my hometown and he showed a similar picture taken on the Lunar surface which shows the distant horizon out of focus - how can this be if the cameras were set to infinity?


In this photo, what are the 3 lights in the visor of the astronaut? They are certainly not part of the LEM!



Also, why do Astronauts feel that they have to charge £20 for an autograph? After speaking to Mr. Allen last night I heard that three well known Astronauts made £30,000 ($50,000) on a recent trip to the UK by just signing autographs! Aren't Nasa paying them enough retirement money already?

Finally, if there is nothing to all this hoax theory stuff, why didn't Nasa continue to fund Jim Oberg's upcoming book? Surely the best way to shut up anybody who thinks your lying is to show them enough evidence to prove that you are not?

Also, as I guess you guys already know, the normal question of ‘Surely the Russians would have grassed up the USA’ has finally been answered. Just a couple of weeks ago the Russian Newspaper ‘Pravda’ published an article about the Apollo hoax, all from an American Military source too…hmmm

Dear Santa,

I am sure all your questions will be answered here. Fiducials are absent in the first photos because NASA cleaned up some Apollo photos recently. This was done using imaging software that did not exist in the 1970's.

BTW: Pravda is russia's new supermarket tabloid.

My first thought was to point out to you that the optics of the lens accounts for a lot of the weird halo effects and lens flares. But, looking at more official copies, I find that this photo is indeed fake. By that, I mean that a real photo has been altered to make it look "nicer". While the current status of the Apollo archives leaves us to suspect how authentic the original a copy may be, LPI has generally one of the more trustworthy archives. Observe this version.

The version you cite has been photographically pushed to bring out the features. The LPI version is more realistic.

This picture is also a composite of a number of different photos. There we reject is as evidence of anything. It is merely a construction that was alleged to look nice. Of course aesthetics are a subjective opinion.

These photos are composites and have been extensively modified. The reseau grid is frequently removed by editors and authors who regard it as unaesthetic.

You would be expected to be more illuminated when you are at the top of the ladder because reflected light off the surface would be more prominent at higher elevations when the angle is less acute. But you also fail to take into account any possible changes to the exposure settings on the camera. (They were probably the same given that they were photographing similar things but you haven't mentioned them and it is important to account for alternative explanations.)

Surrounded? The portions of him that are brightly illuminated have no obstruction between them and the Lunar surface.

You can see the bright, over-exposed Lunar surface. The camera was set to capture shadow conditions and the bright Lunar surface is providing ample illumination.

This is a truer to the original photo and has not had the reseau grid removed by editors.

One was taken from the surface, the other from the LM cockpit. That's a radical change of angle of viewing, not to mention that the exposure settings were probably different.

Because the camera was focused on the RCS thruster quad.

Firstly, the J missions carried telephoto lens for LEVAs. Secondly, you don't need a telephoto lens to have an out of focus photo.

Firstly, you have provided no substatiation that the previous photo was taken with focus infinity. Secondly, you have provided no substantiation that these photos are either. These come from Apollo 14 and show Cone Crater. The change in focus is due to the crest of the crater.

Marcus Allen is a supporter of David Percy who is known to be a liar. Allen made declarations of the integrity of Percy, which are known to be either lies themselves, or misguided opinions. Either way, Allen is not himself trustworthy. Are you sure that the cameras were set to infinity? Did you know that these photos show crests of craters?

It does indeed look like it is the LM in the reflection but I can't be sure. Either way, I'd be hesitant to make too much out of reflections in a fish bowl helmet.

Irrelevant to the discussion of the Apollohoax.

Here, here and most of all here. We have been trying to give them the evidence for ages, but they won't accept it. The contract that was given to Jim Oberg was for the purpose of providing a resource to teachers, not for convincing conspiracists because they are of the kind who won't be convinced. However, the intention was not clearly signalled and an amount of ridicule was received over it so that was why the contract was cancelled. We would have preferred NASA to maintain its dignity and not respond at all. Let the civilians do the debunking.

Pravda is a supermarket tabloid. Their articles are not considered credible.

Since I do collect astronaut autographs, I'll tackle this issue. I do it mainly to talk to these guys versus trying to make money reselling it on ebay,

I think the first reason, these guys charge money is simply that people got them for free, they would turn around and sell them for cash. Just a few months ago, I saw a John Young autograph go for 2,000$ on ebay. If I were one of these guys, I would do the same thing. I really doubt that these guys got 50,000$ for going to England for two days. Their speaking fees are less than that. I would believe something more like 10,000$ would be correct. Just a note John Young still signs for free if you ask him, but he only gives you his current NASA portrait.

Retired government employees of which the astronauts fall into, do not make a hugh retirement salary. One can only make a decent retirement salary if one does the following things. Enter a young age, stay with the government for at least thirty years, retire at an appropriate age, have a high salary when you retire. Most of the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo astronauts served less than a decade, and retired well before an appropriate age where they could recieve benefits. Since they retired early, they get reduced benefits and probably didn't recieve them before age 65.

Hi Santa,
The first picture you posted is a composite. You can find it at

http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html

Click on Apollo 11 then go down to: AS11-40-5863-69 Lunar Module "Eagle" composite by Ed Hengeveld.

Santa: can you show us proof that does not rewquire oversized poor quality photo's?

How do you feel about the technology of gewtting to the moon? Do you believe that we could get to the moon technologically (meaning we could build a craft wthat will work to get us there)?

Do you believe a human can survive the trip there?

Why do you feel that NASA faked the moon hoax?

Where have you done most of your reaserch and what are your qualifications?

Thank you in advance for your replies.

This first picture shows Aldrin coming down the ladder - why is there a corona around the Sun if there is no atmosphere on the Moons surface?

First, be aware that this is a composite picture. That is, somebody "photoshopped" it together from a series of actual pictures.

Second, the "corona" around the sun is light scattered by the lens. Every lens, no matter how good, will scatter light. For most images the scattered light falls below the photographic threshold and so it doesn't affect the image. But the sun is very, bright. If you point the camera directly at it, the scatter is bright enough to be photographed.

The air also scatters light, but air is not the only source of scatter.

Also, you'll notice that Aldrin is in intense light in the above picture, even though he is shielded from the Sun because the LEM is between him and it. However in the picture below, having taken a few steps down the ladder, he is now in complete shadow?

The source of the fill light in these pictures is the lunar surface itself. The surface directly beneath/behind him is in shadow. But the surface to either side of the shadow is illuminated and reflects light back to Aldrin. When he is high on the ladder, those side surfaces are presented more directly to him. When he is lower, and standing on the surface, those lit surfaces are more oblique to him and thus provide less illumination.

This is a well-understood feature of radiance. The conspiracy theorists don't understand it, but real photographers and physicists and engineers do. The lighting in these photos is exactly what we would expect to see.

Why does the 'United States' sign also look like it has moved? The photographer looks like he's taking the picture in the same position to me if you look at the other features in both pictures.

Keep in mind that you're looking at composite photographs which were made from segments not taken from the same positions. See the sequence of (essentially) raw photos here:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/research/apo...gazine.html?40

Compare this to the video. We see Aldrin coming down the ladder and Armstrong with the still camera moving from shadow into light between the shots. The decal is in a different position precisely because the photographer has moved, and that fact is not apparent in the composite photos you're using.

Another thing that has struck me is where have the reticles gone on these pictures?

The person who made the composites has erased them. The fiducials (not "reticles" -- that's the conspiracy theorist's name for them) are sometimes damaged by bleed in the emulsion in the raw images, but a lot of the fiducial truancy is due to the limitations of scanners and JPEG encoders. Don't be too sure about what's "missing" unless you're looking at the originals, or at least very good copies.

Why is it any different in the examples above, especially when you consider that Aldrin in the first picture is actually surrounded by the LEM as he emerges from it?

When you know why the lunar surface is so bright at the tip of the shadow in

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/research/apo...11/40/5854.jpg

you'll then know why Aldrin was so brightly lit on the LM porch. It's not that I'm being stingy with the information. It's just that it will mean more to you if you work it out for yourself. Hint: what's the German word for "halo"?

Also consider this piece of footage at http://www.solarviews.com/raw/apo/apo11f.mov we can clearly see that Armstrong goes down the ladder in very bright light - even though he is stepping down into shadow caused by the LEM? very odd

Not really. The TV camera at this point had the low-light lens on it. The engineers knew that Armstrong would be descending the ladder in shadow and planned accordingly. Further, have you ever seen an Apollo space suit in real life? They're very, very reflective. The outer layer is Beta cloth, which is essentially a form of spun glass. It's meant that way to keep the sun from heating up the astronauts too much. But what it also means is that it takes very little light to light it photographically.

But lets look again at another 'official' Apollo 11 photo taken around the same time. Miraculously the crosses reappear on the picture below.

That's because it's a scan of the transparency, not a hacked up composite.

Why is there such a vast difference in colour between these three pictures? They all come from official Nasa sites and from the same reel of film?

How do you think they got to be JPEGs? Someone scanned them, and in the case of the composites had to adjust the color to make the seams less apparent. There are many, many differences in scanners that lead to color errors.

The composites were likely made from JPEGs scanned from prints. When you make a print, you have the opportunity to adjust the color. And some of that happens unintentionally. The print will differ slightly from the transparency. If you make a print in 1975 and another print in 1999, they will differ in color. If you scan the same print on an Epson scanner and on a Mustek scanner, they will differ.

And actually they don't come from the same reel of film. More precisely, the original rolls are locked up in Texas to keep them safe. For photographic reproduction we use photo masters taken of the originals. The prints were likely made from the 1972 masters, while the newer transparency scans were probablyk made from the 1996 masters. The problem is that all film degrades over time. Transparency film tends to shift toward the magenta end of the scale as it ages. Nothing much we can do about that except do our best to keep the film stable.

Secondly, why are these pictures taken within the LEM out of focus?

Because at this point Aldrin was just shooting random frames in order to use up the film. He wasn't necessarily taking pictures of anything. Roll 37 is basically this same picture over and over again.

A telephoto lens wasn’t actually used on any cameras taken inside the LEM to my knowledge?

True, for Apollo 11. What makes you think any of these photos were taken with telephoto lenses?

Again here is another example of a picture supposedly taken with a lens set on infinity and yet the horizon is blurred?

The blur is not due to focus. This appears in the black and white photography sporadically when there is a boundary between bright objects and the lunar sky. There are some that show the same "smoothing" between foreground, in-focus objects and the background, such as the LRV low-gain S-band antenna in

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/as16-108-17670HR.jpg

This proves that it is not a focus issue. The photographers I have consulted cannot definitively identify what is happening in these photographs, but have suggested it may be due to imsufficient agigation in the developing baths.

In this photo, what are the 3 lights in the visor of the astronaut? They are certainly not part of the LEM!

Nor are they necessarily "lights". They are most likely smudges or scratches on the Lexan visor surface that are catching the sunlight. That's how you find scratches in plastic -- by moving your head around so the light catches it right. Unfortunately you can't do that in a photograph.

Also, why do Astronauts feel that they have to charge £20 for an autograph?

I asked Ed Mitchell precisely this question a few weeks ago.

There's a big market in autographed merchandise. At a celebrity appearance you get ten of your friends to stand in line and get some trinket autographed, and then you sell each one of those on E-bay for as much as they'll fetch. So any celebrity today will either charge outright for the autograph, or autograph only merchandise that you've purchased then and there. This makes it more difficult for people to make a profit from those autographs.

It has nothing to do with making money. It's just the standard response to a few people who ruin it for the rest of us.

Finally, if there is nothing to all this hoax theory stuff, why didn't Nasa continue to fund Jim Oberg's upcoming book?

Because it got bad press. Some people don't want their tax dollars spent on justifying the ramblings of a few ignoramuses.

Surely the best way to shut up anybody who thinks your lying is to show them enough evidence to prove that you are not?

No. The burden of proof is on the conspiracists to justify their allegations.

Further, this isn't about "evidence". Talk with these conspiracists long enough and you'll realize the theory came first, and then they just made a convincing-sounding argument for it out of whatever they could find. If you show them why their argument is wrong, they just come up with some other lame argument for why it's still true. At no point do they consider that their conclusion might be wrong.

Most of these conspiracists believe in all the anti-government conspiracy theories, making this more a product of worldview than of conclusions drawn from evidence.

Just a couple of weeks ago the Russian Newspaper ‘Pravda’ published an article about the Apollo hoax, all from an American Military source too…hmmm

You will find the Pravda article reviewed at this site. Pravda is all but a tabloid these days, and their article was simply cribbed (and badly) from the standard conspiracist sources. The Russian government still maintains that the Apollo project succeeded. In fact, I have private statements from former U.S. security personnel who assure me that Soviet agents had infiltrated Apollo. They would have known if it was fake.

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

I am quite surprised really. I agree that if the source where I got these pictures were not straight from Nasa then some type of cosmetic fiddling could have taken place. But consider that the first picture comes from http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5863-69.jpg with no mention of the picture being altered from the original and I think you can appreciate why such pictures can be mistaken for fakes.

Also, why did Jay Utah mention that such a halo would be visible within air when obviously the Moon is in a vacuum and has no air?

I'm not sure if I agree with the reflectivity of the Moons surface being able to light up Aldrins suit at the top of the ladder when you consider that it only has a 7% reflectivity.

Marcus Allen is a qualified photographer and would, I should think, know a lot about photography?

To my knowledge all cameras used on the lunar surface were fixed at infinity so therefore, either if a ridge was or was not between the camera and the horizon, the horizon should not appear blurred.

Nonsense. Here is the captioned link to that image on the ALSJ site:
In addition, anyone who knows how the Apollo photos are numbered can tell you that AS11-40-5863-69 is not a standard photo number (the 5863-69 on the end indicates it's a composite of several photos in the range 5863-5869).

So it's entirely clear that there was no attempt to present this image as anything but what it is: a pretty composite of several shots.

Jay only mentioned air because you did. He was pointing out that air is not the only thing that can cause scattering. He was not suggesting that air was doing any scattering in this case.

More like 17%, actually. And sunlight is very bright, and cameras have adjustable irises to compensate for light levels, and exposed film can be "pushed" during development to bring out shadow detail.

I don't know anything about Allen or his qualifications. I do know something about Jay's qualifications, and I would strongly recommend that you listen to him.

Jay already explained that the effect you're talking about has nothing to do with the focus setting on the camera.

[/b]I agree that if the source where I got these pictures were not straight from Nasa then some type of cosmetic fiddling could have taken place.[/b]

The NASA web sites contain a variety of materials from a wide variety of sources. Just because you got it off a web site at "nasa.gov" doesn't mean it's intended to be original and/or official. Be real: these are pretty low-quality JPEG scans of multi-generational copies.

But consider that the first picture comes from http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5863-69.jpg with no mention of the picture being altered from the original

But if you are familiar with the way the photos are numbered and identified, you'll know immediately that "AS11-40-5863-69" is a composite. And those of us who are very familiar with the Apollo record can tell immediately becase we know these photos like the backs of our hands. You can immediately recognize elements of the various photos and see the seams in the composition.

I'm not saying you have to reach that level of familiarity, but someone who presumes to criticize the record should reach it. The conspiracy authors fall far short.

I think you can appreciate why such pictures can be mistaken for fakes.

I can. I don't expect the general public to know the intricacies of Apollo data cataloguing. It's just not something that interests more than a fraction of the population. I'm happy to explain it to anyone who wants to, or needs to know.

However, there are authors out there who do not understand photography, or space travel, or how NASA keeps its records, etc. But they write books or web pages, or make videos, that imply (by the simple fact of authorship) that they do understand these things. They fool people who trust them to have done the research.

So while it's an innocent mistake for the average joe to fail to recognize a composite image, it's inexcusable for an author to have done so. That's a simple, basic failure to do the required research. The reader relies on the author to place the source material in an appropriate context and provide appropriate background. When an author fails to do that, he has shirked his intellectual responsibility.

There is a difference between an honest mistake and deliberate or negligent misrepresentation. I certainly don't intend to hold those guilty of one responsible for the other.

Also, why did Jay Utah mention that such a halo would be visible within air when obviously the Moon is in a vacuum and has no air?

Read my response again, more carefully.

Anything that transmits light will scatter it to some extent. Air transmits light, and it also scatters it. But a photographic lens also transmits light, and it also scatters it. There are many things with the potential to scatter light, and the scattering is eliminated entirely only when all of them are removed. Take away just one of them (i.e., air) and the rest remain.

If I aim a camera at the sun on earth, the film will record both scatter caused by the atmosphere and scatter caused by the lens, because both contribute. If I aim a camera at the sun from the surface of the moon, the film will record scatter caused only by the lens.

Logically, it goes like this.

A causes X.
B causes X.

If I remove A, will I still get X? Yes, if B is still causing it.

I'm not sure if I agree with the reflectivity of the Moons surface being able to light up Aldrins suit at the top of the ladder when you consider that it only has a 7% reflectivity.

I'm well versed with the Aulis "albedo" argument. I'm a professional engineer -- energy transfer via electromagnetic radiation (i.e., light) is something we are required to study. I'm also a photographer (occasionally professionally) and also a theatrical lighting designer (not professionally, but happily).

Basically, the Aulis argument is a load of handwaving designed to fool the gullible reader, but utterly laughable to an expert. Sunlight from a 7% surface reflectivity is very bright in photographic terms. Further, the Aulis position considers only albedo and not any of the other principles such as luminance and radiant power, as well as form factors. To compute these, in fact, for any specific instance requires a lot of geometry and iterative computations. A professional photographer and I asked David Percy if he had done any of those computations, or understood any of the concepts, and he just handwaved again about albedo and ignored the rest of the question. In short, David Percy doesn't understand what is required in order to say, with physical science certainty, that the lighting would be sufficient. And it is his responsibility to support his contention that the lighting would be too dark. He has made the assertion, but he has not done the appropriate science to support it.

There is no scientific basis whatsoever for Percy's argument that the shaded side of the lunar module should be totally dark.

Our photographer pointed out that the exposure settings Armstrong used for this series of photos was four stops overexposed from the recommended setting for this light level. Percy was unimpressed.

Further, I have taken several photographs at Apollo settings using nothing but light reflecting from a 7-12% surface (aged asphalt) at right angles (i.e., the worst possible form factor) to the influx, and I get oodles and oodles of light. David Percy's argument is empirically wrong as well.

Marcus Allen is a qualified photographer and would, I should think, know a lot about photography?

I'm sure he does, but not everyone knows everything. A lot of very eminent photographers are stumped by the edge softening in the black
and white photographs. If you find someone know knows for sure, let me know.

To my knowledge all cameras used on the lunar surface were fixed at infinity...

No. The cameras were focused using "zone" focus techniques. There were essentially three settings: near, medium, and infinity.

if a ridge was or was not between the camera and the horizon, the horizon should not appear blurred.

No. This presumes only optical focus can produce the visible effect. I showed you an example which falsifies that hypothesis. Whatever it is, it is not a focus problem.

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

How are they numbered? I know that the AS-11 means Apollo-Saturn 11, but what is the significance of the numbers after it? Strangely, I never wondered about that until now.

__________________
"Too low they build, who build beneath the stars". - Edward Young, 1745

With no mention?

It's written right there and this photo is listed under assembled panoramas. Please be more observant. I would like this debate to be more than just pointing out how you missed obvious thing.

NASA isn't obliged to provide only the unaltered versions. It has publicity people too who want to see attractive pictures, whether or not they are authentic. The ALSJ library contains both. Some pictures modified for aesthetic reasons, aswell as unaltered copies.

There is something to be said for not making a mountain out of a molehill.

Actually, Jay described how scatter occurs due to the lens alone. His mentioning of atmospheric scatter was a conditioned response. It is common for conspiracists to allege incorrectly that this effect of that effect are caused by an atmosphere and therefore can only happen in an atmosphere. Jay was pointing out that while an atmosphere can cause scatter, scatter can happen without it. By now, we have all been conditioned to prepare for such a thing. However, it is irrelevant. Jay aptly described how the lens is the culprit in this case.

Oh dear. The infamous Percy albedo measurement. There was a discussion about reflectivity and luminance here.

On this board, we recognise this argument as handwaving. That is an argument that isn't stated based on quantitative and authoritative evidence, but merely on "I don't think it seems right" arguments, with the occasional number thrown in to make it look scientific. You quoted the albedo as 7%. If you wish to question the authority of some of our highly qualified experts, you need to show what this number means. You've just waved your hands as Cosmic Dave has done and leaped to the conclusion that this figure means that the scene is too bright. Where are the calculations?

If Marcus Allen is anything like David Percy, then his expertise not as much a question as his integrity. David Percy is known to be a liar. But we also have to differentiate between skills as an artistic photographer from skills at the technical aspects of photography and the science of photographic analysis, all three of which are not equivalent.

Wrong. The cameras had variable focus. They wouldn't be much good without it. Because of the narrow aperture used, they used zone focusing.

Since you're such a fan of Cosmic Dave and his associates, might I recommend you take a little while to read through the website of his arch nemesis.

I believe they are the roll number and exposure number, but I could be wrong about that.

You're right, Donnie. Mission is the first number, magazine is the second, exposure is the third. These numbers are continuous for the whole program. In other words there isn't a roll one for Apollo 11, a roll one for Apollo 12 etc. It is sum over the program.

Thanks, Glom, that explains the rather large numbers.

To my knowledge all cameras used on the lunar surface were fixed at infinity so therefore, either if a ridge was or was not between the camera and the horizon, the horizon should not appear blurred.

I have noticed that distant backgrounds in Apollo black-and-white photographs often are "indistinct" like this. (I wouldn't classify them as blurry, though.) I think it is simply the result of the distant detail being below the resolution capability of the lens and film. Distant features like texture on rocks are too small to record on the film.

So you can identify a photo with just the two last numbers? The AS-11 is just to make it simpler to identify them?

__________________
"Too low they build, who build beneath the stars". - Edward Young, 1745

Actually, just the last number is necessary. Every Apollo photo has a unique exposure number. As you say, the roll and mission numbers simply provide easier recognition and classification.

I know that the AS-11 means Apollo-Saturn 11, but what is the significance of the numbers after it? Strangely, I never wondered about that until now.

The second group is a sequential roll number common to all Apollo missions, and the third group is a sequential frame number common to all Apollo missions. Theoretically the final group alone uniquely identifies the frame. So you could refer to the Classic as "5903" without ambiguity. But if you write AS11-40-5903 it stands out to the cognoscenti as a photo ID number. The better you get, the more you can associated roll numbers with specific missions and certain activities. The easy one to remember is that Roll 40 was the Apollo 11 lunar surface EVA roll. All the cool photos from Apollo 11 are on that roll.

The Hasselblad magazines were also assigned letters for missions, so you can hear Charlie Duke talk about loading "magazine bravo" (for 'B') onto the camera and trying to blow the dust off of it.

Technically the AS11 designation is a bit of a misuse. The "AS" indeed stands for the project title and the launch vehicle -- Apollo-Saturn -- but that traditionally introduces a numbering scheme that doesn't have much to do with the mission number. Apollo 11 was also known as AS-506, or the sixth launch ('06') using the Saturn V ('5'), which was referred to by Marshall Space Flight Center as SA-506. (For some reason they liked to transpose the designations.) So the launch vehicle report is labeled "SA-506" and the mission report is labelled "AS-506" and so forth. But "AS11" were "11" is from "Apollo 11" is pretty unique to the photo cataloguing system.

There's a separate system for the 16mm DAC rolls and the ground and training photos.

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

The mission numbering is weird because the popular names were essential chosen as more user friendly names. The line "I stayed up to watching the AS-506 moonlanding" just doesn't quite have the same ring to it.

I think it is simply the result of the distant detail being below the resolution capability of the lens and film.

I doubt it. As my example shows, this phenomenon is not limited to terrain. It shows up occasionally when parts of the LRV or even astronauts are seen against the sky. Here's another example.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/as16-109-17797HR.jpg
Look at the forward OPS flap on John Young's suit, above his helmet.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/as15-82-11168HR.jpg
Look at the low-gain S-band antenna, and the astronaut's OPS.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/as15-85-11437.jpg
The tools in the rear carrier of the LRV.

It's probably not an optical phenomenon if it happens only on the black-and-white film and affects nearby objects. That suggests a photochemical explanation.

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

That is a strange effect, Jay, and it certainly seems to be a factor here. But look at the Apollo 15 photo, to Dave Scott's right of his visor:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/as15-82-11168HR.jpg

The far wall of the rille is more indistinct than the ground in the foreground. Can the effect you mention explain this? Perhaps the black sky does "bleed" into the upper edge a bit, but I think a better explanation for the lack of detail is that it is below the resolving power of the system.

This is a symptom of color photos, too, but it doesn't seem as pronounced to me as in the black-and-white photos for some reason.

Maybe it was due to Deadly Space Radiation™...

Maybe because Marshall was responsible for the "Saturn" part.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

This phenomena is the same light-bleed which wipes out fiducals, but it happens in the enlarger, not the camera, so I would doubt that it shows in the original negatives. In this case, the light area in the negative (the sky) lets more enlarger light through, and the diffusion (dirt) causes the light to bleed into darker areas (moonscape, astronaut -- remember we're talking negatives here). Hence, in the positive print, the dark sky bleeds into the lighter scenery.

It is usually caused by a dirty condenser, negative, glass negative carrier, or enlarger lens. In this case it also could have been caused when the duplicate negatives were made. Note that although those are quite big jpegs, they are very unsharp for prints from a 6x6 Hasselblad negative. This fog effect also happens when an enlargement from a negative is deliberately diffused to soften it, so care has to be taken to not ruin the print.

About a year after Apollo 17 I produced this fog when, as a beginner darkroom worker, in my ignorance I lightly oiled a squeaky enlarger lens diaphragm. The lens worked fine for about six months, but then I started getting print after print ruined by this effect, and couldn't figure out its cause because I was a scrupulously clean worker and always ensured everything was spotless. (It took about 10% of the time to clean everything than it took to retouch prints that needed it because of a dirty environment.) After months of trouble I finally looked into the enlarger lens with a light behind it and saw a very thin film of oil coated over one surface of a lens element next to the diaphragm. It had probably migrated there due to heat from the enlarger lamp. Moral: Never oil any squeaky lens. If lubrication is used in such things, it is a much more special product than sewing machine oil -- sometimes graphite powder or a special combination of plastics.

The effect is in the LPI dupe transparencies:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/research/apo.../108/17670.jpg

Photo #70 in Light's Full Moon clearly establishes that an "image space" effect is at work. The shading effect is not only clear in both foreground and background objects, it's measurable. The diminishment of the optical density has a boundary offset a constant distance in image space from the image light-dark boundary.

It also establishes that it's on the dupe masters, since that's what Light's scans come from. I believe the dupe masters were made by a bipack method (contact exposure). This precludes diffusion by smudged optics.

This does not preclude Joe's theory about optical effects in world space. That is, finding evidence that there is an image-space effect at work does not disprove that a world-space effect is not also at work producing a confounded observation. But at this point I'm more interested in discovering what the image-space effect might be.

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

Can someone tell me about the other numbering system I've seen used? It's the one most of the JSC prints have. Instead of the simple mission/magazine/print format, they have one single long number that doesn't seem to match anything. For example, I have a copy of as11-40-5903 with the file number 20130746. My guess is that it's just simply a running count of photos taken since some starting point, but I'm not absolutely sure.

It's really confusing and kind of irritating when I'm trying to track a photo down but all I have to go on is a meaningless number, or opposite, when I have the ALSJ number, but all my copies are in the JSC format. I can't easily convert between the two.

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

I think they're just file names.

Santa: if you are there please respond to our posts.

If you do not know: On this board posting an inflamatory remark and then leaving it to stir up emotions is trolling. We do not like that. So please do not turn into one of those people and respond. Thank you very much.

Note: I am not saying you are a troll. Just what trolling behavior is.