Jack White new studies

[frenat]

Many here I'm sure are aware of Jack White. He has recently been totally debunked on the Education Forum by Evan Burton. rather than responding to the debunking, he's come up with even more nonsense. Not surprisingly, Aulis is still supportive of him.
New thread on Education Forum here
educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6799
New Apollo "Studies" (if you can call them that) here
www.aulis.com/jackstudies_1a.html

[reynoldbot]

For the jump salute, it looks like there is no dust cloud in the photo but does that mean it's not there? With the high shutter speed the dust very well could be in the frame but not highly visible due to the same color dust behind it in the image. And what's the deal with the "no evidence of run, stop, and dust cloud" stuff? How would 1 frame of film show all three things at once?

Another stupid one is the one saying that Aldrin appears shorter in two consecutive frames. One is him from the side with his knees bent and the other is him from the front. White says his knees are not bent but how would he know since its a frontal shot? They almost always had their knees bent.

The other ones are new basically new arguments touting the same tired claims. Where is the light coming from? How did this dome get here? It's tiring.

[frenat]

He is entertaining to say the least. And I do mean the least. He completely ignores the fact that all of his previous "studies" were shot down and posts more ignorant crap.

[gezalenko]

The one about the lens flare almost debunks itself ! Quote - "the camera used for these images was allegedly a Hasselblad with a pentagonal leaf shutter that would not produce a sphere-like result."

But looking at the original, the flare/dome clearly looks as if it is not a perfect circle - still less a sphere ! It looks to me as if it could indeed be a pentagon with rounded corners and edges - four corners are visible above the horizon, and the fifth would be below the horizon, round about the left shoulder of the LM.

So, they are claiming that a pentagonal shutter should produce a pentagonal lens flare. I don't know enough about photography to know if that is true or not, but the shape does appear to me to be pentagonal, which in their own words would make it consistent with the lens flare hypothesis.

[gwiz]

Craig Lamson has posted a reply on the Education Forum which includes an enlargement of the jump photo with the dust cloud identified.

That didn't take long, did it?

[JayUtah]

Not all lens flares need involve the shutter.

[craiglamson]

jayutah said:

Not all lens flares need involve the shutter.

Correct. In the case of the hasselblad lens (at least the leaf shutter lenses like those used on the apollo missions) the shutter blades are fully retracted when the shutter is open, and as such can have no effect on the shape of a lens flare. As usual White has no clue about the subject he s attempting to discuss.

[JayUtah]

Some catadioptric effects can involve the shape of the aperture, which is a five-bladed leaf assembly. You can see this some Apollo pictures. There are a couple of coherent reflection patterns that will produce it in that lens. When they occur, the black matte surface of the aperture blades absorb light while a glass surface within the aperture opening reflects it coherently. This creates a silhouette of the blades.

But there are many, many possibities for undesired reflection within a lens, and not all of them involve pencils of rays that interact with any aperture or shutter. A narrow pencil of rays from, say, the image of the sun or a hot spot, produce circular or conic-section artifacts because the involve uniformly dispersed scatter and reflections from conic-sectioned circularly-polished lenses. It's a mathematical certainty. And if those pencils miss the non-dioptric elements of the lens (which will be the rule rather than the exception) then those elements are irrelevant.

No, White has absolutely no clue what he's talking about. His argument is tantamount to, "My car is blue; therefore all cars are blue. That cannot be a car because it's red."

[gezalenko]

It's worse than that. On the pentagonal lens flare, he's effectively saying "My car is blue; therefore all cars are blue. That [pointing at blue car] cannot be a car because it's red"

[JayUtah]

Exactly. There are observational difficulties as well. White is not the most observant person. But even if his observation were correct, the logical framework into which he has placed his argument is entirely fallacious.

Ironically the multiple modes in which various conspiracy theories can be considered incorrect makes them more difficult to debunk. It often escapes the conspiracist's comprehension that his argument is so wrong that it cannot be taken seriously practically on any level. Conspiracists often want you to deal with their arguments only on their narrow terms, and are generally unappreciative of efforts to examine them in a larger sense.

This is most evident in 9/11 conspiracy theories. The trend this year is to apply a smattering of general physics equations to the problem of structural analysis and show that the release of energy is inconsistent with expectations. The conspiracists who take this approach expect rebuttals in the form of quibbling over the parameters to these equations -- more or less energy put into the problem, for example. They do not consider that the methods embodied by the equations are themselves incorrect or inapplicable. So they start with 5 and subtract 3 to get 2, and point to the inerrancy of their arithmetic as proof that their theory is correct. They invariably neglect to consider whether scalar subtraction is the proper way to think about the problem. And when people try to bring that to their attention, they accuse the debunker of sidestepping the theory.

Again, this is why untrained, inexperienced people do not necessarily deserve attention commensurate with people who know what they're talking about.

[gwiz]

My little fantasy: Wouldn't it be great to get hold of Jack White's holiday photos, subject them to the same sort of "analysis" and show him he must really have been in a studio all along?

[Joe Durnavich]

Hey, Craig, did I read that right that Jack White thinks the Zapruder film can be convincingly altered by photographing retouched prints with a Bell & Howell 8 mm movie camera?

[reynoldbot]

He posted a couple new things on that page. The "too perfect" argument is also pretty stupid. He says the two photos are exactly the same but his own animation shows variation in virtually every detail of each photo. Is it really that impossible to hold a mounted camera steady in no wind in a stiff bulky spacesuit for 4 seconds while a fellow astronaut jumps a couple times? If it were a tripod the backgrounds would look exactly the same and not show the variation that the two photos show when animated together. He thinks its also impossible to jump the same height twice.

I've been trying to post a comment on the forum but I can't get validation. Here is the comment I want to post:

"Jack in one of your studies you show two pictures of one astronaut taken consecutively and claim that the height of the astronaut has changed. You claim that the astronaut in the second picture has straightened his legs while they are bent in the first. How do you know the legs are straight in the second picture? The view is frontal so any bending of the legs is not going to be obvious. The astronauts almost always kept their legs bent when they stood up, which makes your claim of straight legs nothing more than speculation.

Not only that, but you get very selective in what you decide is a big anomaly. You say that the boots are "almost aligned" but that the helmet line does not match at all and therefore is anomolous. Why do the boots get to be "almost aligned" but not the helmet? To me, it looks like Aldrin's legs are probably still bent in the second photo (judged on the fact that they almost always bent) and that he stepped back a bit and is bending over. You can see the bootprints he left from when the first photo was taken and that he has stepped back at least a foot or so. Follow the bottom line you drew across the two photos and you will see that the bottom of the boot in the first photo is the same distance below the line as a horizontal bootprint in the second which also happens to be exactly as far away from the solar wind experiment as the boot in the first photo. Notice also how the waist is aligned almost perfectly in the two shots and that the misalignment begins from the waist up. That is good evidence that he is bending over from the waist up in the second shot.

I'm at least glad that you didn't try to claim the LM in the background to be anomalous because it appears to change size between photos. The photos appear to be cropped at different sizes. Compare the size of the fiducials in each photo. I guess you've learned your lesson since you were exposed for cropping the two south massif photos to suit your unfounded claims about mountain backdrops.

Oh yeah, as for the "domes": Do we really need to remind you that the "domes" you show also appear to be in front of objects like mountains, LM's, astronauts, etc? That except in the very selective examples you provide, they appear as a complete circle interfering with objects? Doesn't that sound like lens flare or some other camera artifact to you? I don't think a single person on earth buys your stupid "domes" theory, even your kooky sycophants."

[craiglamson]

joedurnavich said:

Hey, Craig, did I read that right that Jack White thinks the Zapruder film can be convincingly altered by photographing retouched prints with a Bell & Howell 8 mm movie camera?

LOL! yep thats what he said. So much for optical printers and traveling mattes...White thinks any smuck with a copystand can do the deal.

[phunk]

Jeez just watch the actual video.

www.apolloarchive.com/

in the multimedia section, "astronaut jumps and salutes flag".

The dust is kicked up as he jumps, and most of it falls back to the ground by the time he reaches the apex of his jump. Remember there's no atmosphere, dust falls balistically on the moon. Why did his screenshots stop only a few frames into the jump, when he was barely halfway to the apex of the jump? Because if he included a few more frames you'd see the dust disperse and settle as expected and he'd have no more "discrepancy".