|
Post by gwiz on Dec 5, 2005 7:11:37 GMT -4
Thanks for the link to Bohn's site, excellent demolition job on a lot of the "anomaly" claims. A little bit of googling found another site showing how to create your own anomaly pictures: www.iangoddard.net/moon01.htmDoes anyone know David Percy's credentials? Since I first came across Dark Moon, I've been surprised that someone claiming to be a professional photographer could make so many errors that even an amateur like me could easily spot.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Dec 5, 2005 7:16:26 GMT -4
Why is the front facing lander leg visible when it's in shadow..? For example, you cannot see this side of the lander cup at the bottom because it's in shadow. Looks to me as if the underside of the footpad is half covered in gold foil and half in matt black, which is why you can only see half.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Dec 5, 2005 9:19:15 GMT -4
Does anyone know David Percy's credentials? I think he has something from the Royal Photographic Society, but that body tends to hand out its certificates on the basis of artistic competence rather than technical expertise: I don't think they do photogrammetry, or expect it from their members. As I understand it, a small portfolio of reasonably composed photographs will get you an LRPS, should you wish to apply for one.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Dec 5, 2005 9:33:34 GMT -4
Looks to me as if the underside of the footpad is half covered in gold foil and half in matt black, which is why you can only see half. See: AS11-40-5917 AS11-40-5918 AS11-40-5920 AS11-40-5925 AS11-40-5926 AS11-40-5927 and AS11-40-5929 www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/images11.htmlThey all show that parts of the footpads were covered in a grey material. The caption for AS11-40-5925 says, "Note the difference in materials used to cover the footpad on the engine-facing surfaces as compared with the outer surfaces." Also, JayUtah has pointed out many times that items close to the lunar surface don't pick up much reflected light from other parts of the surface, but higher items do. It's a good idea to download all the new AS11-40- ? scans and their captions if you have the disc space. Inspecting them can tell us many useful things.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Dec 5, 2005 9:50:30 GMT -4
Why is the front of the lander leg lit up when the light source is behind it..? Why is the moon surface so bright in one spot..? 1. The foil is picking up and reflecting the brightly-lit lunar surface, the same as it does in many other photos, the same way that the shiny sides of most kitchen foils behave. 2. Considering that this is the same picture as in Reply No. 8, the answer should be fairly obvious: Someone has doctored this photo.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Dec 5, 2005 10:08:45 GMT -4
You can see one footprint in going horizontally in front of the astronaut. Where is the second footprint and why is there no footprint step to the right if the astronaut who made this print was walking..? You have shown a highly doctored version of AS11-40-5903, and the answer can be seen in the photo in Reply No. 8, AS11-40-5902, where Buzz's left boot can be seen making that print. He is not walking, he is standing there. He must have turned and stepped backwards into the little crater prior to Neil taking AS11-40-5903. <Edited 10 December 2005 to add: Correction to above -- see Reply No. 46.> Moon Man: Go to the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal (there's a link at the bottom of every page here -- click on Image Library at the Apollo 11 Index page) and study the captions for these photos and also the relevant sections of the journal. They are very informative. You would actually be doing some real research if you did that. In fact, I recommend you read every part of the Apollo 11 Lunar Surface Journal. Doing so might be enlightening.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Dec 5, 2005 12:45:25 GMT -4
How is it possible for the inside leg of the astronaut to be lit up when the light is coming from the other direction, as evidenced by the astronauts shadow.? Don't think this point's been mentioned before, probably because it's so obvious that it's reflected light from his other leg.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Dec 5, 2005 15:24:01 GMT -4
Well Moon Man has repeatedly shown complete disregard to learn anything about lighting and reflection. I guess that's why I work in TV and he doesn't (as arrogant as that sounds). The illumination of a cylindrical object (the leg) is lit from an angle which is displayed by the shadow in front is exactly how it should be illuminated. Also, why is it beyond the scope of most Hoax proponents to not use nth generation copies a particular photo. If I am analysing a musical peice, I use a top notch master, and not a tinny recording that is a copy of a copy. So to when making shading lighting exptrapolations, why use a photo which has the effects of multi-generational copying encoded in it? The hi-res version at Apollo archive has a better contrast ratio in which to make such analysis. The difference between light and dark is not as pronounced as the picture above. As stated before the illumination is totally in line with what is to be expected.
|
|
|
Post by tofu on Dec 5, 2005 16:11:53 GMT -4
Since moonman is apparently not here, I'd like to volunteer to take up his torch and say that the last two pages of debunking has been, "totally unbelievable"
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 5, 2005 17:27:48 GMT -4
But isn't it true that the Apollo camera settings were always set for very fast exposure times, which is why no stars are seen in the photos?
The Zeiss Biogon lens had a largest f-stop of f/5.6. Each magazine had a crude exposure guide on the top. This usually required the astronaut to set the shutter speed at 1/250 and adjust the f-stop to f/5.6, f/8, or f/11 depending on the direction he was facing with respect to the sun. These settings were chosen specifically because it meant leaving the f-stop at f/5.6 for most of the time using ISO 160 film.
They could have set the camera for longer exposure times to photograph stars, but chose not to do this, correct?
Correct, except that "chose not to" is a little misleading. It implies that it was reasonable to do so, and the only reason it was not done was a lack of will on the part of the astronauts. Craig Lamson did experiments that showed it would take something like 30 seconds' exposure at f/5.6 on the 70mm frame in order to begin to expose stars. So it simply would not have been possible for the astronauts to hold the camera still for 30 seconds in order to get usable pictures of stars. So if you want to keep your terminology, it is more accurate to say the astronauts wisely "chose not to" do somthing wasteful and foolish.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 5, 2005 17:39:06 GMT -4
Does anyone know David Percy's credentials?
I've seen several versions of his resume. He is legitimately an associate of the Royal Photographic Society. That can have been awarded on the basis of artistic merit as opposed to technical merit, but it is not really true that it must be. Percy intends that honor to establish him as a technically proficient photographer, but he has so far not revealed whether his associateship is on technical or artistic grounds.
He claims to have been the producer of a "mind mapping" series distributed by the BBC, but I have since determined that this claim is false. He may have been associated with the production in some way, but he was not its producer.
He claims to be an "award-winning filmmaker," but the only award I have seen is a nomination for an annual award given by the organization of British makers of industrial films. Since the award in question offers a gold, silver, and bronze medal, and Percy mentions only his nomination, it seems that he got fourth place at best.
He also claims to be a member of the British Interplanetary Society. So is my cat. Literally. There is no qualification to join.
Since I first came across Dark Moon, I've been surprised that someone claiming to be a professional photographer could make so many errors that even an amateur like me could easily spot.
I have yet to meet any professional photographer to whom I have introduced David Percy's claims who does not immediately write Percy off as an incompetent crackpot.
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on Dec 5, 2005 22:40:02 GMT -4
He also claims to be a member of the British Interplanetary Society. So is my cat. Literally. There is no qualification to join. I know someone with a cat named Copernicus. Maybe he is a member also...
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Dec 6, 2005 4:56:16 GMT -4
He also claims to be a member of the British Interplanetary Society. So is my cat. Literally. There is no qualification to join. True, to be a Member you just have to pay the subscription. They also have a Fellowship grade that requires either a technical qualification or some notable service to the society.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Dec 6, 2005 7:17:57 GMT -4
I made a mistake in the first paragraph of Reply No. 35, but will give members a chance to figure out what it was before fessing up. Thomas Bohn has written a good final paragraph on his page about David Percy, co-author of "Dark Moon": www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/personal.htmDavid Percy has provided me with a valuable learning experience, though probably not the one he intended. The job of refuting him has taught me a lot about photography, perspective, optics, and performing in-depth research. Analyzing the arguments in his book has allowed me to develop and refine my critical mental tools for seeing through the lies of the really dangerous hustlers. Best of all, he has re-awakened my long-dormant fascination with the Apollo missions and, by encouraging me to study them at length, allowed me once again to re-live that grand adventure on another world. And from his next page: www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/loontune.htmThe Moon--cartoon! Don't call me a buffoon! I know about photography--I learned it from Dark Moon!
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Dec 6, 2005 7:34:47 GMT -4
I made a mistake in the first paragraph of Reply No. 35, but will give members a chance to figure out what it was before fessing up. Just made the print with his right foot, then stepped back?
|
|