ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: bknight on December 27, 2016, 06:39:40 PM
-
For all those photo analysts than I, which is pretty much most of you people. How was Jack White's adjustments of image parameters debunked
-
By rubbing two brain-cells together (a numerical advantage Jack sorely lacked).
-
For most of Jack's work, I can understand your logic, however when it involved adjusting, contrast, intensity, hue or any other parameter, I am at a loss.
-
For all those photo analysts than I, which is pretty much most of you people. How was Jack White's adjustments of image parameters debunked
Jack White didn't know what he was doing with those adjustments, and was in no position to interpret the results.
All of the ones I saw he hadn't tweaked copies of scans of the film rolls but of later generation images. There's an obvious problem with doing that: many had already been touched up in order to look better on the printed page. For example, the sky might be deliberately blackened out (on the scans it can look like a lumpy green texture when you zoom in due to scanning artefacts). This may have been done using Photoshop in more recent years, or by using standard dark room techniques in the earlier years. Jack White then made the logical leap that this was evidence the photos themselves had been faked, refusing to even entertain the idea that it may have been caused by the processes I mentioned above.
One of the best ones was the "tweaking" he did of images of the Sun (actually it may have been Percy). He claimed it showed that the Sun was actually a huge light-bulb: what he was actually looking at was the glare, not the disc of the Sun itself. You could prove this quite easily by showing photos where the glare of the Sun partly occluded an object in the foreground, e.g. the LM, proving it could not have been a massive light-bulb. Such refutations generally went ignored.
-
...
One of the best ones was the "tweaking" he did of images of the Sun (actually it may have been Percy). He claimed it showed that the Sun was actually a huge light-bulb: what he was actually looking at was the glare, not the disc of the Sun itself. You could prove this quite easily by showing photos where the glare of the Sun partly occluded an object in the foreground, e.g. the LM, proving it could not have been a massive light-bulb. Such refutations generally went ignored.
I seem to remember one like you describe, i.e. light bulb instead of the Sun, do you have an image where the glare is blocked by an object hand, instead of searching ALSJ?
-
For all those photo analysts than I, which is pretty much most of you people. How was Jack White's adjustments of image parameters debunked
All of the ones I saw he hadn't tweaked copies of scans of the film rolls but of later generation images. There's an obvious problem with doing that: many had already been touched up in order to look better on the printed page. For example, the sky might be deliberately blackened out (on the scans it can look like a lumpy green texture when you zoom in due to scanning artefacts). This may have been done using Photoshop in more recent years, or by using standard dark room techniques in the earlier years. Jack White then made the logical leap that this was evidence the photos themselves had been faked, refusing to even entertain the idea that it may have been caused by the processes I mentioned above.
I can testify to this from personal experience. I often have customers bringing in old B&W family photos to be scanned and either printed or saved onto disk or USB stick. However, sometimes they only bring in a copy of the old photo which was done on a Fuji Pictrostat or one of those awful Kodak Image Magic machines. The results from scanning those are always less than optimal. Lost of contrast is difficult to get back, overdone contrast is nigh on impossible to fix as detail lost on the deep blacks and bright whites has gone.
-
White's so-called expertise was called into question when his expertise was embarrassingly dismantled on the witness stand at the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1976
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/hscawhte.htm
-
White's so-called expertise was called into question when his expertise was embarrassingly dismantled on the witness stand at the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1976
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/hscawhte.htm
I remember that but he didn't click with any Apollo hoax until much later 2001?
EDIT: Corrected spelling
-
White's so-called expertise was called into question when his expertise was embarrassingly dismantled on the witness stand at the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1976
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/hscawhte.htm
At least he didn't state his work stands on its own merits( or words to that effect)
-
I remember that but he didn't click with any Apollo hoax until much later 2001?
Does it matter? An ordinary person might have learned something in the decades between, but Jack?
-
Could any differences that Jack "developed" be explained by different image conversion compression differences?
-
Could any differences that Jack "developed" be explained by different image conversion compression differences?
I'm sure many of them were but you would never have convinced him of that.
-
Here is one example that I have run onto.
From Gemini 9
http://tothemoon.ser.asu.edu/gallery/gemini/9#S66-38032_G09-S
From A12
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-46-6739HR.jpg
The Sun is different when adjusting Brightness to Negative 60 and Contrast Plus 100.
I have a lot of issues with his(her) statement
What were the camera settings of each image.
What was the film type of each image.
What software and/or compression algorithms used for each image.
What printing settings used in printing and then transposing to digital.
-
When you play with the contrast/brightness settings on such a photo, you will discover artefacts from the scanning process too. And compression artefacts from the JPG process. Basically, if you look closely, the picture does not relate to the original scene at
-
I think the reference may be, ten distinct "rays" emanating from the Sun in the Gemini, and many very small faint "rays" emanating from the Apollo image. I can't read his mind, so that reference may be my reading between the lines.
-
I was wrong, he came clean today
My issue is STRICTLY with the..... central portion of SUN,..... and the quality and aspect when picture is run through EXACTLY THE SAME protocol, .............. The pictures "allegedly" taken on the Moon don't have the.... central portion ....with the same qualities as you saw in the first group of pictures, where you and I ...KNOW... that we are looking at the REAL Sun.
Let me repeat that ! The ..... C_E_N_T_R_A_L P_O_R_T_I_O_N O_F T_H_E S_U_N. :))
The same parameters are Brightness -50% and Contrast +100%
In addition The "so called Sun" on the Moon seems to be a lot bigger ( certain sign of proximity ) and the central portion, if you put aside the..... " don't bother me with the facts, I made up my mind already ".... "way of thinking", and put on your "thinking hat", has an uneven surface as far as light emitting, and generates MUCH, MUCH, MUCH, less LIGHT than the real Sun. That could not happen EVEN IF the Sun had been ....underexposed, let alone .... overexposed.
The size issue is probably with a different lens configuration. The central portion, I don't see how changing image parameters "reveals to him a "different" Sun.
-
Who came clean today? Jack White? I thought he was dead.
-
Who came clean today? Jack White? I thought he was dead.
Yes Jack is dead, but one of his disciples(?), name unknown.
-
Straydog (Duane Daman) was a disciple, but this person doesn't sound as abusive.
-
No, (s)he is very polite, no name calling, verbal abuse as of yet. But no citations to questions asked concerning Gemini, such as camera settings, lens, film, but that isn't unexpected, is it?
-
Straydog (Duane Daman) was a rabid disciple, but this person doesn't sound as abusive.
I added the bold for a more accurate description of Duane's Jack White infatuation.
-
...
I added the bold for a more accurate description of Duane's Jack White infatuation.
I saw some of Duane's posting on the education forum and you are correct. there were a few guys that blasted both Jack and he in numerous posts.
-
Jack White did have legitimate darkroom skills. But he wrongly thought they would translate into analyzing digitally encoded photographs, about which he knew next to nothing. And his failure at photogrammetry (which, ironically, has not much to do with the photography practiced by photographers) is well established. Sadly it was upon these last two principles he based most of his conspiracy-mongering.
-
...
One of the best ones was the "tweaking" he did of images of the Sun (actually it may have been Percy). He claimed it showed that the Sun was actually a huge light-bulb: what he was actually looking at was the glare, not the disc of the Sun itself. You could prove this quite easily by showing photos where the glare of the Sun partly occluded an object in the foreground, e.g. the LM, proving it could not have been a massive light-bulb. Such refutations generally went ignored.
I seem to remember one like you describe, i.e. light bulb instead of the Sun, do you have an image where the glare is blocked by an object hand, instead of searching ALSJ?
There's a sequence from Apollo 14 that's quite handy. Check these 2 images out.
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-66-9305HR.jpg
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-66-9306HR.jpg
-
...
One of the best ones was the "tweaking" he did of images of the Sun (actually it may have been Percy). He claimed it showed that the Sun was actually a huge light-bulb: what he was actually looking at was the glare, not the disc of the Sun itself. You could prove this quite easily by showing photos where the glare of the Sun partly occluded an object in the foreground, e.g. the LM, proving it could not have been a massive light-bulb. Such refutations generally went ignored.
I seem to remember one like you describe, i.e. light bulb instead of the Sun, do you have an image where the glare is blocked by an object hand, instead of searching ALSJ?
There's a sequence from Apollo 14 that's quite handy. Check these 2 images out.
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-66-9305HR.jpg
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-66-9306HR.jpg
The size does change as more of the glare is eliminated, thanks.
He hasn't written a response since I linked Frenet's image of he truck and barn. He was so sure the aforementioned tweaking reduced the glare down to the real size of the A12 image, much bigger than the Gemini image.
-
The size does change as more of the glare is eliminated, thanks.
He hasn't written a response since I linked Frenet's image of he truck and barn. He was so sure the aforementioned tweaking reduced the glare down to the real size of the A12 image, much bigger than the Gemini image.
There are other images from the Gemini mission where the Sun looks different to the one with the 10 rays, and much more similar to how the Sun looks in the Apollo images.
For example, http://tothemoon.ser.asu.edu/data_g/G09/Maurer/full/S66-38510_G09-M_f.png
Without knowing a lot more about the cameras and lenses/filters used on Gemini it's difficult to know what causes these differences.
-
Three Hasselblad photographs of bright reflections exhibit the same halo-like reflection seen in shots taken of the Sun, which suggest the effect is clearly an artefact caused by the lens/internal camera optics:
AS11-40-5893
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/22078737161/in/album-72157657350941603/
AS17-138-21080
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21673713572/in/album-72157658984899346/
AS13-62-8973
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21787840768/in/album-72157659522448155/