Author Topic: New Claim About the A16 Photo Smear. This One Has Me Stumped.  (Read 27394 times)

Offline AstroBrant

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 260
  • Yes, we did.
Re: New Claim About the A16 Photo Smear. This One Has Me Stumped.
« Reply #45 on: July 21, 2016, 10:31:24 PM »
when magazine 115 is switched out and 114 gets put back on.

It was magazine 107 which was taken off and replaced by 114. Pictures from the end of 107 and the newly mounted 114 show that they were taken at the same location at station 9.

Quote
Also, according to the index, AS16-114-18444 was taken at station 10; not 9.

Right after they finished at station 9, they went to station 10, near the LM, before ending the EVA. That's why station 10 is seen in mag 114. AS16-114-18444 was taken at station 9. The last usable picture on mag 107, AS16-107-17581, shows the same terrain as AS16-114-18444. The notation says that 18444 was possibly taken at station 9. By comparing these photos we can confirm that it was taken there.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2016, 10:40:43 PM by AstroBrant »
May your skies be clear and your thinking even clearer.
(Youtube: astrobrant2)

Offline AstroBrant

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 260
  • Yes, we did.
Re: New Claim About the A16 Photo Smear. This One Has Me Stumped.
« Reply #46 on: July 21, 2016, 10:44:16 PM »
I'm not sure where you indicate which camera took which image...

Has anyone considered the possibility that something got on magazine 114 itself, that rubbed off onto the plate when it was put back on the camera? 

Yes, I have been stating that possibility all along. My question has been what it could have been and where it came from. 
May your skies be clear and your thinking even clearer.
(Youtube: astrobrant2)

Offline Willoughby

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 85
Re: New Claim About the A16 Photo Smear. This One Has Me Stumped.
« Reply #47 on: July 21, 2016, 11:54:57 PM »
I'm not sure where you indicate which camera took which image...

Has anyone considered the possibility that something got on magazine 114 itself, that rubbed off onto the plate when it was put back on the camera? 

Yes, I have been stating that possibility all along. My question has been what it could have been and where it came from.

Yes, I realized toward the end of my "research" that it was redundant and entirely unproductive.  It's possible I only made this thread more convoluted.

Sorry about that.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2016, 11:58:01 PM by Willoughby »

Offline AstroBrant

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 260
  • Yes, we did.
Re: New Claim About the A16 Photo Smear. This One Has Me Stumped.
« Reply #48 on: July 22, 2016, 11:11:23 AM »

Yes, I realized toward the end of my "research" that it was redundant and entirely unproductive.  It's possible I only made this thread more convoluted.

Sorry about that.

After seeing my comment displayed, I realize it may have seemed testy. Not intended.
I'm thinking that somewhere between EVA 1, when mag 114 was taken off the camera, and EVA 2, when it was put back on the camera, it might have gotten some kind of gunk on it. This could have happened anywhere. Then when it was put on John's camera at station 9, it smeared across the reseau plate. Only those very familiar with the camera will have any idea whether this is a possible scenario.

I'm also thinking that this stuff must have been very waxy by the time it was smeared onto the plate. If it was still kind of gooey, advancing the film from 18444 to 18445 would have changed its appearance. If someone had the inclination and the clearance, a scraping from that reseau plate could be taken and popped into the nearest mass spectrometer. The consensus has always been that John or Charlie wiped it carelessly. I would like to see them vindicated.
May your skies be clear and your thinking even clearer.
(Youtube: astrobrant2)

Offline Willoughby

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 85
Re: New Claim About the A16 Photo Smear. This One Has Me Stumped.
« Reply #49 on: July 22, 2016, 12:27:04 PM »
After seeing my comment displayed, I realize it may have seemed testy. Not intended.
I'm thinking that somewhere between EVA 1, when mag 114 was taken off the camera, and EVA 2, when it was put back on the camera, it might have gotten some kind of gunk on it. This could have happened anywhere. Then when it was put on John's camera at station 9, it smeared across the reseau plate. Only those very familiar with the camera will have any idea whether this is a possible scenario.

I'm also thinking that this stuff must have been very waxy by the time it was smeared onto the plate. If it was still kind of gooey, advancing the film from 18444 to 18445 would have changed its appearance. If someone had the inclination and the clearance, a scraping from that reseau plate could be taken and popped into the nearest mass spectrometer. The consensus has always been that John or Charlie wiped it carelessly. I would like to see them vindicated.

I didn't read your comment as "testy", so no worries.  Yeah, I have a problem with what you are talking about.  That being the smudge did not change from 18444 to 18445 (at least not significantly).  So, if this substance was on the magazine and then so easily transferred from the magazine to the plate, how is it that it managed to "set up" so quickly on the plate - when it had been on the magazine for at least 7 hours (the time from the start of EVA #2 til it was put on the camera) - yet manipulative enough that it would have so easily transferred to the plate?  Yet the first cranking of the film does very little (if anything) to move it more.  Though you do mention that the gunk could have gotten on the magazine anywhere, and that is true.  Though I can't imagine the source of the gunk and them just arbitrarily coming across some sticky goo in the middle of an EVA.

I had an idea to download all the images starting with 18444 thru the end of 114, and then all of 116.  Throw them into photoshop and make each photograph a frame in a movie.  Then we could get a good look and see if the smear changed much.  I know it wouldn't help in answering your question, but I think it would be cool!
« Last Edit: July 22, 2016, 12:28:57 PM by Willoughby »

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3108
Re: New Claim About the A16 Photo Smear. This One Has Me Stumped.
« Reply #50 on: July 22, 2016, 01:23:17 PM »
I just emailed Charlie asking him for input to the question.  He may/may not remember an incident 46 years ago, I can resemble that myself! :)
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline Kiwi

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 471
Re: New Claim About the A16 Photo Smear. This One Has Me Stumped.
« Reply #51 on: July 23, 2016, 08:16:50 AM »
I had an idea to download all the images starting with 18444 thru the end of 114, and then all of 116.  Throw them into photoshop and make each photograph a frame in a movie.  Then we could get a good look and see if the smear changed much.  I know it wouldn't help in answering your question, but I think it would be cool!

I've already done that and can do it to any series of photos.  Why do any more than save the photos on any drive then view them in IrfanView? It's easy and very fast, as I mentioned here:
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1165.msg39052#msg39052

Quote
Thanks to having all lunar surface photos on the hard drive and IrfanView (one of the best freebies online - just press space or backspace to instantly load the next or the last picture or to watch a slo-mo movie), it was an easy task to find that Apollo 14's film 66 has many "blue comet flares."

Just holding down the space bar or backspace key gives you a slo-mo movie in either direction. Plus you can zoom in a great deal on any one picture you want to examine, and can manipulate images too.  IrfanView is an utterly brilliant free program.
www.irfanview.com/
You might find, as I have, that the many plug-ins (extra download) make the program even better.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2016, 08:29:06 AM by Kiwi »
Don't criticize what you can't understand. — Bob Dylan, “The Times They Are A-Changin'” (1963)
Some people think they are thinking when they are really rearranging their prejudices and superstitions. — Edward R. Murrow (1908–65)

Offline AstroBrant

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 260
  • Yes, we did.
Re: New Claim About the A16 Photo Smear. This One Has Me Stumped.
« Reply #52 on: July 24, 2016, 12:51:24 PM »
  So, if this substance was on the magazine and then so easily transferred from the magazine to the plate, how is it that it managed to "set up" so quickly on the plate - when it had been on the magazine for at least 7 hours (the time from the start of EVA #2 til it was put on the camera) - yet manipulative enough that it would have so easily transferred to the plate?  Yet the first cranking of the film does very little (if anything) to move it more.

That puzzled me, too. All I can figure is that it was very waxy at the time mag 114 was attached at station 9. (That's why I went from "greasy" to "waxy.") The film was held against the reseau plate by two vertical spring clips, as far as I can tell from illustrations del  de la haye linked me to. They would obviously be near or past the edges of the frame, and if the smear was some pretty stiff material, I can see how the film could slide over it without disturbing it, even right after the smear happened. At the location of the smear, film isn't pressed against the reseau plate as hard as whatever caused the smear.
 
May your skies be clear and your thinking even clearer.
(Youtube: astrobrant2)

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3108
Re: New Claim About the A16 Photo Smear. This One Has Me Stumped.
« Reply #53 on: August 21, 2016, 03:06:41 PM »
I just watched an Amy Shira Teitel video and I have a new theory of how the marks appeared on the images.
Note at about 0:50 second mark Amy shows an image of the camera and a magazine that I haven't seen before.  At that time stamp there is a clear warning "CAUTION DO NOT TOUCH GLASS SURFACE".

So might the debris whatever the composition been on John's glove and transferred to the glass?

Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline Kiwi

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 471
Re: New Claim About the A16 Photo Smear. This One Has Me Stumped.
« Reply #54 on: August 22, 2016, 09:47:49 AM »
...So might the debris whatever the composition been on John's glove and transferred to the glass?

I definitely reached a "maybe" conclusion about that after studying the Spacecraft Films Apollo 16 DVDs on a large screen to see if anything unusual was videoed of the magazine in question, and John Young certainly seems to have quite a wrestle with the camera when he puts that magazine on his camera for the last time. Plus, his spacesuit is covered with lunar dust.

We probably need JayUtah, who has used similar cameras and magazines, and even John Young and Charlie Duke to view that piece of video and read the ALSJ to see if dirt on John's suit could have got onto the reseau plate. To me it looked possible because he seemed to clutch some part of the camera and/or magazines to his chest. I also wondered if static electricity was present and helped do the dirty deed.

While John seems to have trouble removing the previous magazine and replacing it with the one which eventually carried the marked film, I just don't know how his efforts compare with other occasions when magazines were changed.

I took a lot of notes about what is on the DVD and at exactly what times interesting things occurred, but got side-tracked and the thread died down, so I didn't write up the pertinent details. It might take a few days to find and review the notes.

« Last Edit: August 22, 2016, 10:08:24 AM by Kiwi »
Don't criticize what you can't understand. — Bob Dylan, “The Times They Are A-Changin'” (1963)
Some people think they are thinking when they are really rearranging their prejudices and superstitions. — Edward R. Murrow (1908–65)

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3108
Re: New Claim About the A16 Photo Smear. This One Has Me Stumped.
« Reply #55 on: August 22, 2016, 10:19:32 AM »
...

I took a lot of notes about what is on the DVD and at exactly what times interesting things occurred, but got side-tracked and the thread died down, so I didn't write up the pertinent details. It might take a few days to find and review the notes.
Is this the DVD from Space Films or a video on ALSJ?  If ALSJ please post a link of it.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline Kiwi

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 471
Re: New Claim About the A16 Photo Smear. This One Has Me Stumped.
« Reply #56 on: August 22, 2016, 11:05:47 AM »
Is this the DVD from Space Films or a video on ALSJ?  If ALSJ please post a link of it.

No link, no ALSJ video, no YouTube, and no "Space Films" DVD either -- only what I described in the first paragraph:

...the Spacecraft Films Apollo 16 DVDs on a large screen...

That's usually the only video worth analysing, in my opinion, until better comes along.

Unfortunately I don't have the Spacecraft Films' DVDs of every mission from Mercury to ASTP -- the last purchases were the 6-DVD sets of Apollos 16 and 17 -- the longest hours of lunar surface video and the best quality. Apollo-nuts' heaven!
Don't criticize what you can't understand. — Bob Dylan, “The Times They Are A-Changin'” (1963)
Some people think they are thinking when they are really rearranging their prejudices and superstitions. — Edward R. Murrow (1908–65)

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3108
Re: New Claim About the A16 Photo Smear. This One Has Me Stumped.
« Reply #57 on: August 22, 2016, 11:17:40 AM »
...
My Space films was reference to Spacecraft Films.  So ok, I will have to go through the list of ALSJ snippets.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3108
Re: New Claim About the A16 Photo Smear. This One Has Me Stumped.
« Reply #58 on: August 22, 2016, 02:33:50 PM »
Kiwi on your video what are they doing right before changing the magazine, or after?  I don't see any clip that has a change on it and I'm trying to get a time reference.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline Kiwi

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 471
Re: New Claim About the A16 Photo Smear. This One Has Me Stumped.
« Reply #59 on: August 24, 2016, 08:26:59 AM »
Kiwi on your video what are they doing right before changing the magazine, or after?

I haven't yet had time to look again, but from memory, which could be faulty, and taking into account that we don't always see both astronauts:-
Before: Taking photos.
After: Taking photos. And possibly avoided slurping some of that fart-inducing orange gunk.

...I'm trying to get a time reference.

What sort of time reference? – It helps to be specific.
1. The time in my source which you've mentioned above?
2. The time in another video?
3. The ground elapsed time?
4. Some other time?

I fail to understand why you ask such a question because in order to find the exact video, all the links and answers I needed are right here in this thread. Some are in my first post, including certain times of interest, and the remaining ones have kindly been posted by other members.

That post also mentions the correct terminology for the film magazines that should be used to find what the astronauts say about the subject in the ALSJ. If somebody searched there for the terms used early in this thread, they would possibly never find anything, but I soon found interesting quotes by using the correct term.

In fact it might be best to state the film number, then a slash and the correct term, which is done at the ALSJ, such as Magazine 112/L. But remember that that film number never existed throughout the mission and was only allocated back on Earth later when the films were processed. So when astronauts and Capcom talk about film magazines they never mention a film number. It didn't exist.

I was a complete beginner to this particular subject when the thread originated, but soon advanced with a little study and helpful clues from our fellow researchers.

You said in one of your posts that you "speed read" and skip much of the detail in long posts, and recently you have repeatedly asked posters for answers they have already posted. Someone might get rather irate soon if you keep it up, because your frequency has already become eyebrow-raising, next it might cause face-palming, after that it could become tedious. Some time later it might become downright insulting.

Perhaps not, though, to we laid-back characters down here in the southwest Pacific with summer slowly arriving, but some people in other parts of the world crumple in the face of such things, y'know.  :)

If you have some disability that inhibits your ability to comprehend threads here, please tell us as we can rightly cut you some slack, but so far you've mainly just mentioned the following, which it might pay to reconsider because some of us probably get much more useful information from long posts than from dinky little one-liners:-

Ah those long posts I tend to speed read skipping much of the detail...

« Last Edit: August 24, 2016, 09:16:33 AM by Kiwi »
Don't criticize what you can't understand. — Bob Dylan, “The Times They Are A-Changin'” (1963)
Some people think they are thinking when they are really rearranging their prejudices and superstitions. — Edward R. Murrow (1908–65)