This is a youtube search on "Moonfaker" by Jarrah White. I have no intention of debunking every single thing in his hopelessly ignorant videos. I offer instead a youtube search for "Moonfaker critique", where Phil Webb has already debunked a large proportion of them already:-
This is a demonstration whereby having a Phd in no way gives you skills in other fields. Hologram image analysis is not photogrammetry.
Before I debunk this rubbish, I want to present a critique on David Groves.
1. He begins by telling us that he is the director for Quantec Image Processing Ltd, a point raised 3 times, as though it has some weight of argument. The company went into liquidation in 1999 and ceased to trade in 2000. The film came out in 2000.
2. Groves performs a heat experiment on the Kodak film, by placing it in an oven!! For those who understand physics, using convection as a means to heat something, when supposedly comparing to the activity in a vacuum where none such convective heat is possible, is just plain stupid.
3. Groves fires a full strength X-ray at the film and concludes that it is a comparison to Solar x-ray, when the x-ray strength from the Sun is less than 1/1000th of a standard x-ray machine! In addition, he lists the energy levels in measurements of REM, when this is a measurement of human tissue exposure, instead of RADS which is the unit he should have used!
4. He used the wrong camera, and gave no indication that the magazines had been strengthened as per the ones used on Apollo.
If he is a scientist, he's a pretty poor one, selling out to make a buck!
Analysing the actual clip:-
The video clip is from What Happened On The Moon. Groves says he places the secondary light source next to Aldrin, yet ignores the most obvious of all methods to determine where the source is, by eye. As can be seen from this photo close up, the centre of the picture is about 30 centimetres to the left of his boot and it is so stunningly obvious that the hotspot is pointing straight back at the camera! The light source is the spacesuit of Armstrong, lit up like a Christmas Tree from the Sun! The clip even shows the video record with him brightly lit.
Percy, the maker of the film, then compares the TV footage using low bandwidth 10 fps, exposed for the surface, to the picture lit by surface reflected light and exposed accordingly. Just plain daft, as though a TV picture on a Vidicon camera will compare to a Hasselblad still camera!
They then debunk themselves with some "normal" and "backlit" models of the LM. In the backlit versions, we see the ground shadows soften noticeably, and the ladder now casts a solid shadow! Way to go Percy, I'm sure none of the gullible HBs noticed that one!
Percy then goes on to indicate average Lunar albedo as 7%, and says it is "untenable" as a natural light reflector. Bunkum. I wonder how many people think the Moon is not bright enough when viewed from Earth!
"Our Moon’s average visual albedo is 0.12. The brightness of the Moon changes dramatically as its phase changes. During first and third quarters, the visible Moon is 50% illuminated by the Sun, but its brightness is only about 8% of full Moon -- an increase of 2.7 magnitudes. The Moon’s visual albedo on its illuminated segment gets progressively smaller as the angle between the Earth and Sun on the Moon (phase angle) increases. A major reason for this decrease of visual albedo with increasing phase angle is the greater creation of shadows on the irregular lunar surface, thereby reducing reflected light back to Earth."
Indeed, one of the properties of the Moon, is its propensity to reflect light back at the light source. It is why a full Moon is 8 times brighter than a half Moon.
The natural backlighting of the Moon's surface is obvious to all but blnkered HBs, and corrupt film makers. Remember also, that the average albedo accounts for such things as crater rims, depressions and rocks, which are much lower, so a reasonably open area of surface will be higher than the average.
Percy continues with his ignorance, by showing pictures exposed for the surface, up sun and distant terrain to supposedly demonstrate nearfield under exposed rocks have shadows. Bunkum.
He uses a picture of the LM with a huge over glare from the Sun, indicating a high exposure, to insist it has been filled in with a light. Yet, we see no shadow softening, and no secondary shadows as per his example shown above.
Continuing the clip, we hear the account of HJP Arnold (assistant to MD of Kodak 1966-74) where he makes some observations about the quality of the pictures. Presumably the film makers used this to suggest that perfect photography was not possible. Despite the hundreds of duff photographs never shown, the hours and hours of practice performed, and preset aperture and exposures calculated, this is just more bunkum.
It did make me smile when I heard what Mr Arnold said:-
"That sequence of images on the Lunar surface, taken mainly by Armstrong of course, with that one camera, which incidentally was left on the Moon, so it's gonna be a marvellous relic for when we eventually get back there of course.... the film came back."
I get the impression he knows we landed on the Moon, and has no trouble believing the film made it back safely!
Percy now moves up a gear to pure subterfuge. He "analyses" the classic Aldrin photo and concludes all sorts of fall off problems, and alignment problems(from David Groves who concludes the camera must have been tilted down!) assuming I suppose that the Moon is as flat as a pancake! He then shows the picture to Jan Lundberg (of Hasselblad) who cannot explain it.
Perhaps if he had used the correct version, rather than a magazine adjusted crap copy, he would have had no problem with it at all?
Here is the photo analysed by somebody who knows what they are doing:-
Here is why Jan Lundberg was confused:-
And visually, the picture shown to him, and the proper picture next to each other:-
This is another clip from the film What Happened on the Moon.
Firstly he looks at a photo of Al Bean and concludes the astronaut was above him in the visor reflection as though it's impossible?? He was in a slightly elevated position. The area they took these photos was undulating and perfectly normal as one would expect from the Moon's surface.
He then concludes that 2 Apollo 11 photographs are suspect, because the horizon is a different level to other shots at different angles. Once again, for some reason, he seems to think the Moon is dead flat! Google Moon shows perfectly the terrain of the Apollo 11 landing site with its undulations, and is fully consistent with what is seen.
HBs have no trouble in believing this contention, with David Percy begging the question at every opportunity, yet failing to realise this so simple point.
This clip from the camera setup, shows the nature of the terrain, clearly undulating and a very wide area. This sequence alone, debunks the stupid "shot in a studio" contention!
This is where I become suspicious of whether you have actually watched this clip. It is a small Real Player version of the film "Was it a Paper Moon", which you include later on in your wall of spam.
I will address that film separately.
This is where some observant HB has noticed a Mythbusters film with some fleeting scratches on a small piece of film played back through a studio monitor and concludes they are "wires"!
Directly responded to by Mythbusters:-
Completely refuted in this clip from a very long wires debunk video:-
Not only does that clip show the two scratches appearing in the exact same frame as each other, but also shows that the scratch doesn't match the astronauts movement. Not wires - scratches. Bunkum.
Doesn't work. I expect it is a clip from the What Happened On The Moon film, and I will address it in one series(including and expanding upon the two clips above).