Debunking The Apollo Moon Hoax: jack white

Friday, July 1, 2011

Apollo 12 - the smudge on the visor

"Some kind of studio" light being a Fresnel, as suggested by the image. Once again your capacity for research is below hopeless, or you just haven't got around to amending your standard cut and paste forum post.

For many reasons this contention is simply wrong:-

1. A spotlight would not show up against a dark background in a visor when it was switched off. If there was sufficient light to illuminate it, the cables and lighting rig to support it would also show up.

2. The "flaps" are known in the lighting industry as "barn doors". According to the visor, these barn doors are longer than the width of the light! That is not how these lights are made. The barn doors are used to limit light spillage, but why would you do that, when the objective would be to light as much as possible? A fresnel without barn doors would always be used, but obviously would be nowhere near bright enough for the job. Makes no sense.

3. There are no pictures in the Apollo records where a spotlight, capable of lighting only a small area, is apparent. Always we have a single shadow, crisp and dark, and a fully evenly lit terrain, so why would such a light even be suggested as necessary?

4. Should such a light be used as a fill light, there would be washed out and multiple shadows.

5. Having a light at eye level on a wide angled shot with distance perspective and a low angled Sun is simply a ludicrous suggestion.

6. The reflection suggests a fresnel light that is absolutely enormous in size. A 180 degree visor reflection would show even the largest fresnel as really small. I cite the size of the so called "superlight", not much different in apparent size as the "fresnel". Fail.

The so called "studio light" is in fact a simple mark on the visor, located at the point where Conrad would push his visor up, or pull it down. A similar mark is seen on several other of the EVA pictures. Since the picture used is the only front-on shot, the other pictures with the same mark, only show a partial of this smudge on the visor.
Here is a small compilation of 3 side shots that show the "barn doors" attributed to the "studio light".

The "Superlight" contention

The Contention:-

Before I begin disassembling this over blown nonsense, I want to quickly touch on something pertaining to the person who has performed a most embarassingly inept photographic analysis at Aulis.

Namely Jack White.

Here is a short excerpt from the House Select Committee concerning supposed discrepancies with backyard photos and Oswald's rifle during a JFK hearing, this is what he said:-

Mr. WHITE. As I said, I am not a scientist. I don't indulge in that sort of thing. [...]

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, I just have one question.

Mr. WHITE. All right.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. When you did this study, did you compute photogrammetrically the effect of tilt on the way that the length of an object appears in a photograph?

Mr. WHITE. I conducted a study by photographing a yardstick from three different-

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, answer my question. Did you compute photogrammetrically----

Mr. WHITE. What is "photogrammetrically"? ...... Describe to me what "photogrammetrically" is.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. I just have one more question Mr. White. Do you know what photogrammetry is?

Mr. WHITE. No.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. I have no further questions. Thank you.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/experts.htm

Now, the non scientist, who doesn't know what photogrammetry is!!....then proceeds to make the most inept of studies on the Apollo records.
In this post I shall simply refute his conclusion of the "superlight" theory to light the Apollo video footage. Here is a youtube video I made on the subject:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWyjuCGEODU

And part 2 that completely refutes this stupid theory:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBVjjPzU8SQ

Another youtuber has performed an analysis of studio lighting to show how shadows behave with lighting. To suggest a studio light could mimic the luminosity of the Sun, which in turn is the only thing that could light such vast areas, is simply ludicrous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ONk27fN5rg

Finally, at the end of that page quoted in the "wall of spam", the ineptitude continues with a simply daft analysis of the Heiligenschein effect caused by the volcanic nature of the Lunar surface.

Read This Page:-

Lunar Retro-Reflection Phenomena

Amazingly he comments about shadow directions, converging (due in fact to the depression in the surface). Now I wonder in any way, how he would account for single solid dark shadows, with the implicit suggestion that more than one light source was used???

Same thing occurs on Earth, when the Sun is low, and the grass has dew(droplets, similar in reflectivity to the volcanic beads on the Moon).