New Claim About the A16 Photo Smear. This One Has Me Stumped.

[JayUtah]

Jay, I know you have handled identical cameras.

With the magazine detached, an Apollo-modified Hasselblad 500/EL exposes the reseau plate, and without careful handling it would be easy to contaminate it.

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.

The manipulation of the darkslide was different for Apollo that for standard 120-size magazines.  Normally you attach the magazine and then remove the darkslide.  For Apollo, the darkslide had to be removed prior to attaching the magazine.  This means the frame in the gate will be sunstruck.  The astronauts were instructed to expose a couple "throwaway" frames prior to removing a magazine that would be reused later.  This was to ensure that usable photography would be safely wound onto the takeup reel in the magazine.  Likewise a couple of throwaway frames would need to be exposed after reattaching the magazine to continue the roll.  That would ensure that fresh film from the supply reel would be in the gate.

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...

Water, sugars, and citric acid, plus trace elements.  Citrus juices are not complicated mixtures.  If it was powdered orange drink, then perhaps artificial or natural flavors, but mostly just the sugar and acid.  The smudge looks to me like a fairly viscous liquid sheared between two surfaces.  It would be question of timing, since even in a vacuum it would take some time for the liquid elements to vaporize.  Normally citrus juices spend a fair amount of time in a syrup stage before all the water is released.  Then they form a crystal film on whatever surface they're attached to.

Does the film actually press against the reseau plate, or is there a small space?

It contacts the reseau plate, and in the middle of the frame is actually pressed up against it by force.  The idea is to make the film as flat as possible.  And the stain is clearly in the focal plane.

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.

This makes some sense.  The sunstruck frames are typically not reproduced as they are photographically useless.  However, one of these sunstrikes may have accumulated a contaminant which was then transferred to the reseau plate.  It would not show up in duplication until the first useful frame, by which time it would have had plenty of opportunity to smear.

[JayUtah]

Yep. So all we have to do is find that camera and do a chemical analysis of it!

The film roll exists too.  It would not be out of the question to chemically analyze a sunstruck frame on the camera original roll.

[Glom]

But how does this smear say anything about a hoax?

[Kiwi]

There are some terminological inexactitudes being used here.

The film that was later numbered AS16-114-18383 to AS16-114-18470 was in magazine B and
the film that was later numbered AS16-116-18563 to AS16-116-18724 was in magazine E.

In short
Film 114 magazine B
Film 116 magazine E

The frames which show the streaks are
AS16-114-18444 to 18470 (last 27 frames)
and
AS16-116-18563 to 18724 (entire film)

Frame AS16-114-18442 is light-struck and 18443 is blank, yellow-orange and dirty, but does not have the same patterns of dirt as the following frames, so may have acquired its dirt after processing.

See the Lunar and Planetary Institute's Apollo Image Atlas for Apollo 16
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/mission/?16

and the Apollo 16 Image Library at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journals
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/frame.html

Approximate ground elapsed times the frames were taken:

Unmarked frames
AS16-114-18437 to 18441 GET 125:24:40, EVA-1 close-out
The camera body may have been wiped after this, following EVA-1 if magazines B and E were used on the same camera.

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

Note in the ALSJ at the beginning of film 116:

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.

Beware of the lighting and exposure having an effect on the lightness or darkness of the smears. It's better to do a close examination of the shapes of the many smears all over the frames in the high-res scans enlarged to 100%.

Look for downsun shots with no lunar sky. For instance, there is a clump of gunk at the very top left of the frames and as the ALSJ says, the marks change slowly.

Another interesting effect is the strong flare and/or lack of focus near the centre of frames AS16-116-18672 to 18680. Charlie Duke couldn't have blown on the lens to produce that.

If any HBs find a strange "anomaly" near the top left horizon of AS16-114-18450, tell them it's just a flag on the mortar pack which appears again at the end of the pan in AS16-114-18466 and 18467. And out of focus behind John Young in AS16-117-18826. Any remaining mystery is fully solved in stereo in AS16-113-18378 and 18379 (although perhaps not to HBs' satisfaction).

[Mag40]

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.

[bknight]

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'll bet he, Lovell and Anders wish he hadn't also.

[bknight]

There are some terminological inexactitudes being used here.

What do you believe gives the smears/smudges have an orange hue/color?

[smartcooky]

There are some terminological inexactitudes being used here.

What do you believe gives the smears/smudges have an orange hue/color?

Could be any number of things but IMO the prime suspects would be diffraction, fogging (light damaged) or damage to a colour layer in the film.

Out of those, I would pick light damage, which tends to cause yellow/orange/red streaks and patches in the prints taken from colour film





These light damage examples are almost certainly caused by either a light leak through the back of the camera or due to the back being partially opened with the film still spooled out in the camera.

In the A16 case, a smudge on the reseau plate could cause light damage through diffraction. Is the orange effect worse when the smudge is adjacent or close to something bright in the field of view? If so, then IMO it is almost certainly caused by diffraction.

[nomuse]

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?

[Kiwi]

There are some terminological inexactitudes being used here.

What do you believe gives the smears/smudges have an orange hue/color?

I see mostly a medium chocolate brown colour, but it does vary according to the scenery in each photo and the exposure of it, from over- to normal- to under-exposure.

Long experience with photography has taught me to never leap to conclusions about things like this if I am not already familiar with them, so from simply looking at the smears and dots all I can answer is, "Some smearable substance, possibly a liquid that dried up, but exactly what? No idea."

We know that the crappy orange juice and the farts it caused got on John Young's nerves because he complained to Charlie Duke in the LM and accidentally had his mike switched on, so it was heard on Earth and reported in newspapers. And didn't Charlie have a small flood of the juice inside his helmet?  If so, the orange juice could be a candidate for the smears, but I certainly doubt it because of the lack of good evidence. The astronauts weren't silly, so most likely wouldn't have mixed cameras, film and orange juice if they could avoid it.

Smartcooky summed it up well because he has most likely seen similar things in his career.  Diffraction at the edges of a dried-up liquid could produce the colour.

To me, another possibility would be tiny bits of glass in the lunar dust causing diffraction. Some of that was distinctly yellow or orange, as we know from Jack Schmitt's discovery at Shorty Crater (Station 4) on Apollo 17.

In looking at the smears we also need to keep in mind that with the high-resolution scans in particular, we are looking at very big enlargements of 2¼-inch- or 6-centimetre-square images, so need to consider them in their original size. Colours would probably not be visible unless extremely strong.

Another candidate could be a simple, long-forgotten sneeze by Charlie or John when the back of the camera was exposed in the LM.  That could account for the extremely tiny drops we see on the smeared images. Have done that to photographic gear myself, many times, and produced similar-looking smears on glass and film.

[bknight]

Thanks to smartcooky, Kiwi and Jay for their input.  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. 

[BertieSlack]

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.

Instead of the word 'darker' perhaps I should have used 'more opaque'. That might be a better description of the smears as seen on EVA-3 photos compared to EVA-2.

[Mag40]

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?

That was my point

[Kiwi]

...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. 

After re-reading the ALSJ quote in your reply No. 3,
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1161.msg39009#msg39009
I can see another possible a problem with terminology.  I think that the ALSJ is merely pointing out that the smears are recorded on the original films (as opposed to every frame being smeared with near-identical bits of gunk) and the smears didn't turn up sometime after the films were returned to Earth, such as when duplicates were made of the originals.

When I first saw the smears (and before reading about the likelihood of them being on the reseau plate) I wondered if they had been introduced during the duplication process, or even years later when electronic scans were produced, because that's where such near-identical faults on many frames most commonly originate. Well, at least in my experience!

However, I'm not saying that the original films wouldn't at all have got some gunk on them. The gradual changes in the smears indicate that a little of the gunk probably got moved or rubbed off the reseau plate by the films, so it could have become attached to them, and even washed off when the films were developed.

But I do think that what we are seeing in the photos is mostly the result of gunk on the reseau plate preventing light reaching the film in the normal manner.

I'm interested in knowing how other photographers interpret the quote in reply No. 3, and my comments here, because it's likely that we've all had different experiences of such things.

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?

After EVA-1, when I presume the gunk got on the reseau plate (instead of after EVA-2), did the camera take any more photos that do not have the smears? Both John and Charlie used the camera, so it might not be easy to find the exact details.

[Bryanpoprobson]

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?

It was an email from me a couple of years ago that drew Eric's attention to it. The file I put in comment #2 was Eric's digging.