Apollo Discussions > The Hoax Theory

Identifying a photo fragment

<< < (2/3) > >>


--- Quote from: onebigmonkey on November 02, 2022, 02:08:11 PM ---Every so often those pesky hoaxers come up with something that's interesting.

In their latest excretion, the Apollo Detectives (in this case Marcus Allen and Scott Henderson) think they've found an anomaly in the scanned positives from magazine 37 at the March to the Moon website:


As you can see, the first image in the magazine has a fragment of a preceding frame. Here it is:

As you can see, it very obviously isn't the calibration chart that is usually the first image. It also isn't in included in any of the photographic records for that magazine.

The detectives have come to the conclision that the ribbing, or accordian folding, at the left of the photograph is the underside of the ascent module:

which someone has decided to photograph lying on the ground with a bit of their suit in the shot as well. It's therefore a shot of the LM out of sequence, as magazine 37  didn't leave the LM, and the first clear shot is in lunar orbit before the landing. Zoiks! Fakery!

That's obviously nonsense, so the question is: what is it showing? I can't see anything with that kind of accordian folding in the LM photos or footage I've looked at.

I think there are two options. It's either an additional photograph taken on Earth after the calibration shot, or it's taken during the mission. The photographic sequence suggests that if it is the latter, it was more than likely taken in the LM as they did the final check out of the cameras before undocking for descent.

If it's in the LM, what might it be? Any ideas?

What might explain its non-inclusion in the record is that the part of the frame visible immediately after the calibration shot is obviously very overexposed:

as is the very bottom of the fragment in question, so it might be that the majority of the image looks like that.

--- End quote ---

Talk about HBers clutching at straws.....


--- Quote from: BertieSlack on November 04, 2022, 05:17:33 AM ---
--- Quote from: onebigmonkey on November 02, 2022, 04:08:53 PM ---At least one contributor.......
--- End quote ---

Dave McKeegan? He makes good videos. Are you in touch with him?

--- End quote ---

No, but his demolition of the Apollo Detectives was a joy to watch - a very thorough analysis of how the cameras worked, why their arguments are nonsense, and how dishonest their approach is. He should do more of that kind of thing!

I get so tired of hoax posts that start "As a photogrpaher..." when what they obviously mean is "I saw a camera once" (I include Marcus Allen in that), it was good to see an actual photographer go into informed and educated detail.

For people who haven't seen it, here's his original:


and his response to the Apollo Detective's dishonest hatchet job:


Kinda reminds me of the EVA boot


--- Quote from: onebigmonkey on November 06, 2022, 02:55:23 AM ---I get so tired of hoax posts that start "As a photogrpaher..." when what they obviously mean is "I saw a camera once"
--- End quote ---

As a photographer, who used to process my own films - B&W, colour (C41) and transparency (E6) and someone who has been in the commercial and retail photographic industry for almost 30 years (and prior to that, for a good part of my time in the military) I can say with some authority, and considerable experience, that I have never yet seen a valid argument about lunar photography from the Apollo hoax-believing community.

There are dozens of these arguments, but there are two that stand out like dog's balls to me...

1. The "Apollo lunar surface photos should have shown stars" argument.
This is the most obvious one to any real photographer worth his salt. Hoax believers say that a photo like the one on the left is suspicious because there are no stars in the sky, but in fact a photo like the one on the right would be suspicious to me, because I know it would be impossible with the film or video technology of the time ...


Anyone who doesn't believe this, take your camera outside on a starry night, set to manual exposure, 1/60th sec, point it up at the sky, and take a photo. See how many stars you get? Now try it while standing under a street light!

2. The "Apollo lunar surface photos were obviously lit from multiple light sources" argument.
No, the Apollo lunar surface photos were obviously NOT lit from multiple light sources, because if they had been, there would be multiple shadows. This is what happens when a scene is lit with multiple light sources...

It will be obvious to anyone who has watched a stage show, or been to a stadium for a nighttime football match, or watched an episode of Star Trek when the away team was on some weird planet where a sound stage was used as the scene when that scene has been lit from multiple light-sources.

And I won't even go into the "Apollo lunar surface photos should have shown parallel shadows" argument. I have numerous earthbound photos which rip that one to shreds.   

The old parallel shadow rubbish...


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version