Hadley : A study in fakery by Colin Rourke

[slang]

NASA source for the Nicollier image.

[robdog]

Apr 19, 2010 18:14:27 GMT -4 slang said:

NASA source for the Nicollier image.

Thank you very much.

I've managed to find a nice hi-res one here too:

spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-103/hires/sts103_731_017.jpg

Great detail in this one; I'm pretty sure it shows the bottom edge of an additional visor at the top of his helmet, and I'm guessing that's the tab he would use to deploy the visor right next to his left-hand light (or is it camera?) attachment.

And is that the Earth I can see reflected in the top of his visor?

[slang]

Explore eol.jsc.nasa.gov/
If you use the advanced search, you can find this image in mission STS103, roll 731 (frame 17). Click on the checkmark to enable viewing thumbnails in the result page. Get hi-res versions from the "details" page for each image (mind you, it may take up to 5 minutes to prepare higher resolution images for download, the website will tell you). Roll 732 or 733 or so, I don't remember, has great images of Hubble receding. The details page will even note where and when the image was taken, which camera and film were used, etc.

[robdog]

Apr 19, 2010 18:50:21 GMT -4 slang said:

Explore eol.jsc.nasa.gov/...

I wish you hadn't shown me that; now I'm going to be up all night ;D

[laurel]

Apr 19, 2010 17:03:22 GMT -4 gillianren said:

Wait--he didn't get that you can raise and lower the visor? How little research does it take to learn that?

He doesn't know how the cameras were used either. From his site:

Recall that the camera used for all the lunar photographs was a fixed focal length, with no viewfinder and fastened securely to the breastplate of the astronaut taking the photo . . . No photo taken with the camera level with respect to your body (as it must be if fixed to your breastplate) can produce a shadow like this.

The camera was not fixed to the breastplate. It was attached, yes, but the astronaut could easily remove it if he wanted to get a particular angle for a photograph or if the other astronaut wanted to use it. It wasn't uncommon for them to hold the camera in their hands to take pictures.

I don't understand why he has an Apollo 12 image in a "study" about Hadley, either. And the number on it (AS12-6984) should be AS12-47-6984 according to the ALSJ.
history.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-47-6984.jpg
He seems to be saying in the text that this picture was taken between the flag salute pictures, but it's an Apollo 12 picture.

[gillianren]

Apr 19, 2010 17:59:53 GMT -4 robdog said:

I can understand a first-grader being taken in by the whole fake moon landing thing; but a Professor of mathematics? I find that somehow slightly disturbing

Remember that people are often ignorant of things outside their own field. His being taken in by it, however, is different from making arguments without doing a little basic research, especially in a public fashion. And, yes, Laurel, that includes everything he said about the camera, too. Surely Occam's Razor would indicate the camera's being able to be removed, since I'm pretty sure there is at bare minimum footage of astronauts having moved the camera from the thingie.

[laurel]

There's this clip from Apollo 17 starting at 118:24:51, for example.
history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17v.1182451.rm
From the ALSJ description:
[Gene starts to bend his knees and, in an effort to get Earth in the picture along with Jack and the flag, almost gets down on his knees. His first effort, AS17-134- 20383 gets the flag but very little of Jack and the Earth, his second photo, AS17-134-20384, is much more successful. After he gets up, Gene gives Jack the camera and they trade places.]
...
[Jack holds the camera in his hand and gets it as low to the ground as he can without kneeling.]

[robdog]

OK, this is my first ever real attempt at a debunk, so I would be most grateful if you could cast your collective eyeballs over my following reply to Prof. Rourke and let me know if I have made any significant technical, logical or grammatical (I believe that'll be Gillian's job; see I don't post much, but I've been lurking plenty errors:

1) I agree with you that Nicollier is working on something important using suitable looking tools, and that Irwin is captured in a more frivolous moment during the Apollo 15 mission. However, this only proves, well... that Nicollier is working on something important using suitable looking tools, and that Irwin is captured in a more frivolous moment during the Apollo 15 mission. The Apollo 15 astronauts did in fact spend many hours carrying out a variety of serious tasks which are clearly documented in the Apollo 15 Flight Journal (history.nasa.gov/ap15fj/); they did not spend the entire mission "arsing around". Even so, I see no reason why astronauts caught on film doing anything other than carrying out scientific tasks should be deemed suspicious.

2) It is not true that Apollo astronauts "always have mirrored visors". Here: i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/07/19/article-0-05C30DC4000005DC-422_634x542.jpg, and here:
history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17schmitt.face.jpg are images of Apollo astronauts with clear visors. Nicollier is of course working in full sunlight; he's in space right? I presume you mean that he's facing the sun. What evidence do you have that he is facing the sun, and even if he were, what evidence do you have that this would require him to deploy his mirrored visor?

3) Regarding the quality of light in the photographs; what exactly is the "usual yellowish character" of a photograph taken in space? Why would the Nicollier photograph, taken at an altitude of 328 nautical miles, be in anything other than "clean sunlight"? Can you quantify the "bluish tinge" that you claim to see in the Apollo photograph? What exactly are the "definite distance shading effects" that you claim to see? Can you explain to me why any percieved colour casts to the two photographs may not be caused by differences in the equipment and film used, reflections from the items contained in the photographs, or the two entirely different locations?

4) Regarding the appearance of the two astronauts' spacesuits; the article hanging from Irwin's suit is a sample bag attached to his PLSS; it is not part of his suit. Nicollier's suit is clean because he is in a clean environment. Irwin's suit looks less clean because it has attracted lunar regolith. If you examine a high resolution version of the Nicollier image, you will see that his suit exhibits many flaps, loops and creases; it is far from "tight with no loose ends".

5) What evidence do you have that Nicollier's outer suit has been partially inflated due to leakage from his pressurised inner suit?

6) There is indeed a crosshair in the middle of the Apollo photo. If you are referring to your version of the photograph then the reason that there's a crosshair in the centre is because you cropped the photo in such a way that there's a crosshair in the centre. If you are referring to the original photograph, then please explain to me why there shouldn't be a crosshair in the centre. Lastly, please explain to me exactly what is artifical about the horizontal lines dividing the background shades in the Apollo photo.

[robdog]

Apr 19, 2010 20:12:48 GMT -4 gillianren said:

...Surely Occam's Razor would indicate the camera's being able to be removed, since I'm pretty sure there is at bare minimum footage of astronauts having moved the camera from the thingie...

Exactly what I thought, and it took me ooooh, all of 45 seconds to prove that was the case.

[laurel]

You might want to link to the Apollo 15 Lunar Surface Journal (www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15j.html instead of the Flight Journal since the ALSJ specifically deals with the lunar surface activities you're speaking of. Also "perceived" and "artificial" are misspelled. Yes, I can be compulsive about spelling.

[raven]

Here's another picture of Schmitt with the gold visor raised.
www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-146-22296.jpg

[carpediem]

Apr 19, 2010 19:44:01 GMT -4 laurel said:

I don't understand why he has an Apollo 12 image in a "study" about Hadley, either. And the number on it (AS12-6984) should be AS12-47-6984 according to the ALSJ.
history.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-47-6984.jpg
He seems to be saying in the text that this picture was taken between the flag salute pictures, but it's an Apollo 12 picture.

No he doesn't, he says:

Some idea of what has happened is given by another photo taken between the two (Figure 14 left). The foreground tracks have been partially obscured by a swathe of clear dust.

The photo on the left is AS15-92-12450.

The Apollo 12 photo is the one on the right and is referred to in the section Anomaly 2: The outward shadow

[ka9q]

Apr 19, 2010 20:56:51 GMT -4 robdog said:

Nicollier is of course working in full sunlight; he's in space right?

I don't see a single sunlit object in the entire Nicollier picture. The entire scene is indirectly and very softly lit by sunlight reflected off the earth, which is out of the frame to the top (past his head). You can see the earth itself reflected in the upper edge of his visor.

Well, okay, the earth is directly lit by the sun. But everything else is lit by light reflected off the earth.

[laurel]

I'm sorry for misinterpreting him . . . but in my defense I am clearly not the only person who was confused by his study. If I was going to do a photographic study of the Ocean of Storms, I don't think I'd be putting photographs of the Apollo 15 site in it.

[gillianren]

Okay, doin' my job . . . .

You want "suitable-looking tools." The hyphen there shows that it's all one descriptor. What are the tools? They are tools which look suitable.

You don't want colons after "here" and before your links.

Other than that, it looks good!