EVA-2 images, from Station 9. Readers should note that the smudges visible on frames 18444 to 18470 at the end of the magazine are most likely on the original film. The scans linked below were made by NASA Johnson from the original film in about 2005-6. Identical smudges appear on scans made from prints and negatives which derive from duplicate negatives made long ago from the original film, probably not long after the film arrived in Houston from the Moon. Because the original film is the only common ancestor, the smudges are necessarily on the orginal film. The fact that the film was in the LM cabin between the time 18443 and 18444 were taken may be significant.
I don't think so Jay:
So it seems this smear had to have occurred when John switched magazines at Station 9. Then if they did wipe the reseau plate in that camera after EVA2, it certainly would not have looked the same in all the rest of the photos taken with that camera.
You are correct. Most, if not all, images from Mag 116 have the smudge/smear.So it seems this smear had to have occurred when John switched magazines at Station 9. Then if they did wipe the reseau plate in that camera after EVA2, it certainly would not have looked the same in all the rest of the photos taken with that camera.
The smear is also visible on photos taken with Mag 116 - which seems to be the only mag used on John's camera during EVA-3. So whatever got onto the reseau plate at station 9 stayed there.
So it seems this smear had to have occurred when John switched magazines at Station 9. Then if they did wipe the reseau plate in that camera after EVA2, it certainly would not have looked the same in all the rest of the photos taken with that camera.
The smear is also visible on photos taken with Mag 116 - which seems to be the only mag used on John's camera during EVA-3. So whatever got onto the reseau plate at station 9 stayed there.
Yep. So all we have to do is find that camera and do a chemical analysis of it!
Is it possible that something got on to Mag 116 itself that was then introduced to the reseau when it was changed?
Yep. So all we have to do is find that camera and do a chemical analysis of it!
It looks like the smears on Mag 116 (used on EVA-3) are darker than the smears on Mag 114 (used from station 9 onwards on EVA-2). That might suggest that the gunk on the reseau plate is sticky and actually picks up more dust etc when the mags were changed after EVA-2.
Jay, I know you have handled identical cameras.
I've also wondered if it might have gotten on that removable light-proof shield that's on the front of each magazine, while it was out of the camera, and then got deposited on the plate when reloading or when advancing one frame before taking any actual pictures.
If it had been orange juice, then it would have been out in the vacuum for all that time before 114 was mounted. I don't exactly know the chemistry here...
Does the film actually press against the reseau plate, or is there a small space?
If there's direct contact, the gook may have gotten on the film and then spread onto the plate when the film was advanced from 18443.
Yep. So all we have to do is find that camera and do a chemical analysis of it!
Loaded on John's camera for EVA-3, but initially used by Charlie Duke. Each of the frames shows a set of smudges. Detail of the smudge pattern change only slowly from the begining of the magazine to the end. The smudges are undoubtedly the result of contact of a dust-ladened, damp cloth with the reseau plate in John's camera during an attempt the clean enough dust off the camera to make the settings readable. See page 10-60 from the Apollo 16 Technical Crew Debriefing.
It looks like the smears on Mag 116 (used on EVA-3) are darker than the smears on Mag 114 (used from station 9 onwards on EVA-2). That might suggest that the gunk on the reseau plate is sticky and actually picks up more dust etc when the mags were changed after EVA-2.
But how does this smear say anything about a hoax?
But how does this smear say anything about a hoax?
It does the opposite. If these films were pre-arranged setups in some sort of studio or outdoor environment, there wouldn't be any of this. Why would NASA even bother smearing films to make it look more authentic. Absurd to say the least. Almost as absurd as Borman having a loose moment to make Apollo 8 more realistic.
There are some terminological inexactitudes being used here.
There are some terminological inexactitudes being used here.
What do you believe gives the smears/smudges have an orange hue/color?
But how does this smear say anything about a hoax?
It does the opposite. If these films were pre-arranged setups in some sort of studio or outdoor environment, there wouldn't be any of this. Why would NASA even bother smearing films to make it look more authentic. Absurd to say the least. Almost as absurd as Borman having a loose moment to make Apollo 8 more realistic.
There are some terminological inexactitudes being used here.
What do you believe gives the smears/smudges have an orange hue/color?
It looks like the smears on Mag 116 (used on EVA-3) are darker than the smears on Mag 114 (used from station 9 onwards on EVA-2). That might suggest that the gunk on the reseau plate is sticky and actually picks up more dust etc when the mags were changed after EVA-2.
Beware of the lighting and exposure having an effect on the lightness or darkness of the smears.
But how does this smear say anything about a hoax?
It does the opposite. If these films were pre-arranged setups in some sort of studio or outdoor environment, there wouldn't be any of this. Why would NASA even bother smearing films to make it look more authentic. Absurd to say the least. Almost as absurd as Borman having a loose moment to make Apollo 8 more realistic.
I can't remember. Were you around here when Doctor Socks made almost exactly that claim?
...I believe now that the smuge/smear in on the reseau plate not on the film as ALSJ concluded. Whether it is a liquid of some composition or lunar regolith is up for grabs. :)
But a final point is that Eric Jones has always wanted the ALSJ to be an accurate and understandable record, so always welcomes suggestions that he clarify something.
Two questions for those who have studied the smears -- has anyone traced and recorded exactly what happened to each of the two film magazines (B and E) and the camera, and at what times?
But how does this smear say anything about a hoax?
But how does this smear say anything about a hoax?
The person who made the original video, Jet Wintzer, has a typically absurd explanation. Orange juice squirted out through the helmet mount and got into the camera during the exchange of magazines 107 and 114 at station 9. This proves that the helmet was not air-tight, therefore it was on Earth. Of course, there would be no way for orange juice to squirt through a helmet mount, airtight or not, much less two helmet mounts.
Some of you have still been discussing when the smear occurred. This is one of those rare cases where a hoax believer actually did discover something which proves the consensus wrong. The smear could not have occurred in the LM after EVA 2.
@Kiwi: Yes, I also figured that the ALSJ notation of the smear being on the film meant that the marking was recorded in the original photos, not that it was physically on the film. I think that wording needs to be changed. It had to be on the reseau plate. This is why I asked if the film was pressed onto the plate when the magazine was attached. Since Jay points out that it was, then the original smear could not have still been very damp when mag 114 was mounted at station 9, or it would have changed appearance through several frames as the film spread across it. The gook, whatever it was, probably got on the magazine between EVA 1 and EVA 2, and had several hours to dry before the magazine was mounted near the end of EVA 2. It does resemble a substance which was tacky, but not gooey enough to be smeared by the film as it was advanced. Kind of like a smear from a glue stick or grease pencil.
I'm also wondering if there is anything like grease or wax which John could have gotten on his glove during EVA 2. Normal oily or greasy lubricants weren't used for mechanisms exposed to the exterior environment, right? So what could have been greasy? Any ideas?
...
The person who made the original video, Jet Wintzer, has a typically absurd explanation. Orange juice squirted out
I would say that the substance is on the plate, and any substance on the film would be from the plate (rubbing off when the film winds) and as someone has already said, if any did rub off on the film, it got washed off during processing, and I would also agree that they are talking about the smear being recorded on the film; not necessarily physically present there.Did you see anywhere in the timestamps where they wiped the plate in the LM?
I don't know if this helps at all, but there is some kind of time line here. I would suspect that the smear gets on the plate either when they are messing with the magazines in the LM between EVAs or when magazine 115 is switched out and 114 gets put back on.
AS16-114-18443 was the 317th photo taken - at GET 05:05:23:00 (this is the last frame of EVA 1, which ended at GET 05:06:04:40 according to mission time line.
AS16-114-18444 (smear first appearance) was the 933rd photo taken - at GET 06:05:18:00 (this magazine was removed presumably after EVA 1, and then replaced magazine 115 when 115 ran out toward the end of EVA 2).
AS16-115-18558 was the 932nd photo taken - at GET 06:04:59:44
So either the smear got on the plate between the end of EVA 1 (05:06:04:40) and the beginning of EVA 2 (05:22:39:35)
OR
Between AS16-115-18558 (06:04:59:44) and AS16-114-18444 (06:05:18:00) when switching out magazines.
Also, according to the index, AS16-114-18444 was taken at station 10; not 9.
| Photo Ind. | Seq | GET | EVA | Description |
| 114-18443 | 317 | 05 05 23 | #1 | Penultimate photo EVA 1 |
| Streaks in direction of film wind | ||||
| 114-18444 | 933 | 06 05 18 | #2 | 1st definite smears, 1st EVA 2 |
| 114-18470 | 959 | 06 05 24 | #2 | Smear in shade |
| 116-18563 | 1028 | 06 21 56 | #2 | First on 116(all smeared) |
I believe that from the timestamps the smear happened in the LM between EVA 1&2, like Willoughby. Note the image 114-18443. If you zoom up on the image you will see streaks in the direction of film rotation. This image and the next are "unusable" except they may have been taken inside the LM. And as Jet indicated in his video the magazines were changed in the vacuum of the Moon.
...
MAG 114 was put into the camera. This was the only roll in the camera during EVA 1, and the last photo taken was AS16-114-18443 at the end of EVA 1.
The crew then spent some time in the LM between EVAs. At this point, MAG 107 was put on this camera - starting with AS16-107-17495 at station 2 of EVA 2, and ending at AS16-107-17583 at station 9 of EVA 2 (the whole magazine). Then MAG 114 is put back into the camera, and the next shot is AS16-114-18444 (the beginning of the smudge), and this shot is taken at station 10 of EVA 2. So, this magazine is not put onto the camera until they are at station 9 or 10 of EVA 2, and there are plenty of photographs taken on EVA 2 on MAG 107 that do not contain the smudge. This makes it pretty apparent that the plate got compromised while switching between 107 and back to 114 to finish out the magazine.
AS16-107-17583 was taken at GET 06:04:24:25 (photo does not have smudge - taken at station 9 of EVA #2)
AS16-114-18444 was taken at GET 06:05:18:00 (very next photo taken with this camera - has a smudge - taken at station 10 of EVA #2)
...
One thing that can be cleared up is I think AS16-114-18443 is irrelevant because the entire MAG 107 was shot between 114-18443 and 114-18444, none of which contain the smudge.
EDIT :
The remainder of MAG 114 is shot during EVA #2 and all shots after AS16-114-18444 contain the smudge.
Then for EVA #3, MAG 116 was put into the camera, and every shot has a smudge.
And I have basically just restated what Astrobrant says in his original post.
...
MAG 114 was put into the camera. This was the only roll in the camera during EVA 1, and the last photo taken was AS16-114-18443 at the end of EVA 1.
The crew then spent some time in the LM between EVAs. At this point, MAG 107 was put on this camera - starting with AS16-107-17495 at station 2 of EVA 2, and ending at AS16-107-17583 at station 9 of EVA 2 (the whole magazine). Then MAG 114 is put back into the camera, and the next shot is AS16-114-18444 (the beginning of the smudge), and this shot is taken at station 10 of EVA 2. So, this magazine is not put onto the camera until they are at station 9 or 10 of EVA 2, and there are plenty of photographs taken on EVA 2 on MAG 107 that do not contain the smudge. This makes it pretty apparent that the plate got compromised while switching between 107 and back to 114 to finish out the magazine.
Actually Mag 115 was changed out for 114.
107-17583 844 06 04 24
115-18558 932 06 04 59
114-18444 933 06 05 18
I agree with your findings that 107 was shot all during EVA-2, in addition parts/all 108 and 110 during EVA-2( I didn't investigate whether all of 108 and 110 were shot during EVA-2)Quote
AS16-107-17583 was taken at GET 06:04:24:25 (photo does not have smudge - taken at station 9 of EVA #2)
AS16-114-18444 was taken at GET 06:05:18:00 (very next photo taken with this camera - has a smudge - taken at station 10 of EVA #2)
...
One thing that can be cleared up is I think AS16-114-18443 is irrelevant because the entire MAG 107 was shot between 114-18443 and 114-18444, none of which contain the smudge.
Actually I made an editorial error in my table it should be 14-18442. It and 18443 were botched images.QuoteEDIT :
The remainder of MAG 114 is shot during EVA #2 and all shots after AS16-114-18444 contain the smudge.
Then for EVA #3, MAG 116 was put into the camera, and every shot has a smudge.
And I have basically just restated what Astrobrant says in his original post.
One of the aspects both of us are not including is that there were two cameras used, I believe, and I'm not sure of the accounting of when two are in use.
Since the reseau plate was part of the camera and if the same camera shot the images being discussed then you are correct the smears/smudges occurred all outside the LM.
...I'm not sure where you indicate which camera took which image, but I'm finished going back over the whole mess again. Yes 115 was used by Charlie. 116 was loaded in John's camera, but used by Charlie for some of the images. 114 was in John's camera but used by both.
The camera in question only shot three magazines, and all photos from all three magazines were shot from one camera. The three magazines are 107, 114, and 116. I made a mistake in an earlier comment when I assumed that 115 was swapped for 114 (I think you made the same assumption I did - that 115 was done, and swapped out for 114). But, if you look at the sequence of shots, you will find that after 114 is put in the camera a second time, there are 4 more shots out of roll 115 that are taken around the same time - so obviously it didn't get taken out of the camera; it was in the OTHER camera the whole time. I think we both got thrown because what appeared to be the final shot of 115 was the 932nd overall shot, and the next shot from 114 was the 933rd shot. It's just coincidence; they were taken from two different cameras. 115 is still in the other camera, and shoots off 4 more frames to end EVA #2 after 114 begins shooting.
So basically, the only film in the "compromised" camera was :
Mag 114 to start - shot during EVA #1 and took the last photograph during EVA #1
Mag 107 put in to start EVA #2, and the entire magazine was shot - ending at station 9 at EVA #2
Mag 114 put back into this camera - the first shot and all subsequent shots contain the smudge. First shot being at station 10 EVA #2
Mag 116 put in and shot throughout EVA #3 - all shots containing the smudge.
I'm not sure where you indicate which camera took which image...
when magazine 115 is switched out and 114 gets put back on.
Also, according to the index, AS16-114-18444 was taken at station 10; not 9.
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?
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.
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 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!
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."
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.
...So might the debris whatever the composition been on John's glove and transferred to the glass?
...Is this the DVD from Space Films or a video on ALSJ? If ALSJ please post a link of it.
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.
...My Space films was reference to Spacecraft Films. So ok, I will have to go through the list of ALSJ snippets.
Kiwi on your video what are they doing right before changing the magazine, or after?
...I'm trying to get a time reference.
Ah those long posts I tend to speed read skipping much of the detail...
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.
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. :)
Marked frames
AS16-114-18444 to 18470 GET 149:18:29 to 149:24:21, after the close-out of EVA-2
AS16-116-18563 to 18724 GET 165:55:34 to 170:47:16, loading the rover for EVA-3 through to close-out of EVA-3, and VIP site
Journal Text: 149:14:13 3 minutes 7 seconds ( RealVideo Clip: 0.8 Mb or MPG Video Clip: 28 Mb ). Both clips by Ken GloverNone of these video clips contains images of John changing magazines.
Journal Text: 149:17:13 1 minutes 58 seconds ( RealVideo Clip: 0.5 Mb or MPG Video Clip: 18 Mb ). Both clips by Ken Glover
Journal Text: 149:19:06 2 minutes 27 seconds ( RealVideo Clip: 0.6 Mb or MPG Video Clip: 22 Mb ). Both clips by Ken Glover
None of these video clips contains images of John changing magazines.
You're looking at the wrong GET to see him change a magazine.
AS16-114-18444 to 18470 GET 149:18:29 to 149:24:21, after the close-out of EVA-2
Journal Text: 149:14:13 3 minutes 7 seconds ( RealVideo Clip: 0.8 Mb or MPG Video Clip: 28 Mb ). Both clips by Ken GloverI always assumed those times were the beginning of the video, but that may be incorrect. So then tell me what time the magazine was changed, from your notes if you prefer. I'm not trying to ask you to do a lot of extra work.
Journal Text: 148:14:04 3 minutes 7 seconds ( RealVideo Clip: 0.8 Mb or MPG Video Clip: 27 Mb ). Both clips by Ken Glover.
I didn't answer the reference time as it was irrelevant, as any time reference would have been sufficient.
You are putting me to a lot of work!
...
Some of your answers are utterly weird to me. They don't make sense. They are contradictory. Like the quote above. "the reference time... was irrelevant, as any time reference would have been sufficient."
So puh-lease, type just two words and the one digit of the four that applies in the list I gave you. Such as "Your list: 3" if you do indeed want ground elapsed time.
This is precisely why I indicated any time reference will work. I am able to make the correction.
It's easy enough: 06:05:18:39 is 149:18:39 (6 x 24 + 5) plus the same MM:SS.
Fair enough.
Sure, many of us can do that, but its far easier to follow if it's done in the post.
Why is any time reference would be sufficient, a contradictory answer?
QuoteSo puh-lease, type just two words and the one digit of the four that applies in the list I gave you. Such as "Your list: 3" if you do indeed want ground elapsed time.
If it makes more sense to you then option 1, if those times are the times in ALSJ (GET) as those are the only ones that I have access.
If I understand correctly you this time, you don't want option 1, you want option 3 - GETs.
I just watched an Amy Shira Teitel video
None of these video clips contains images of John changing magazines.