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

[bknight]

For me, it would take a documented timestamp for each image, and I don't know where one other than the occasional one in ALSJ.

[AstroBrant]

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?

[Bryanpoprobson]

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?

Anything greasy or  lubricant would have been more opaque, it would have had a milky appearance over the film?

[bknight]

...
The person who made the original video, Jet Wintzer, has a typically absurd explanation. Orange juice squirted out

Jet Wintzer is typical of the newer breed of HB's.  I think I know the video you are referring, started with a cylindrical building in the snow?  This same video presented the swinging bag(?) during A16 with no visible method of propulsion so "therefore it had to be wind from a fan or wind".  It also presented a thrown object at the LM IIRC, and I started a thread on that "problem".  I can't remember if I posted any comments, assuming comments weren't disabled.

ETA:  Perhaps Jet misidentified the smudges/smears as orange juice since they had an "orange" colored hue the same as I.  But I think that Kiwi put the best explanation that they may have been light brown or regolith with maybe sunlight refraction"?" coming around the pieces.   I'm in the "on the reseau" camp but not necessarily a liquid on it.

[Willoughby]

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.

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.

[bknight]

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.

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.

Did you see anywhere in the timestamps where they wiped the plate in the LM?

[Willoughby]

No, because the timestamps are only associated with the actual photos taken (and they are probably estimates since the pans all have the same time, etc.).

My guess is that it happened in the LM.  I can't imagine what substance could be on their glove (or anywhere outside the suit) several hours into EVA 2 when mag 114 was put back on (being in a vacuum for 7 hours).

EVA 2 starts at 5 days 22 hours in (and change)

Mag 114 is put on shortler after 6 days and 5 hours in, so almost 7 hours into EVA 2.  What liquidy substance could they have gotten on the plate when they are only exposed to lunar elements for 7 hours?  That's why I consider and assume it happened in the LM between EVAs.

[Willoughby]

I'm going to study the index more, but for now, I can say that it is reasonable to assume that the only other magazine used in the camera besides 114 was 116, and all of those photos have the smear as well.  116 contains photos throughout EVA 3 right up to the end of EVA 3 (but not the last picture taken on the mission).

In other words, it is reasonable that there are no other magazines containing pictures WITHOUT the smear for the remainder of the mission taken after the time the smears initially appeared on the photos.

[Willoughby]

Sorry for spamming the thread.  I found what I was looking for without having to make some guesses.  The camera that shot mag 114 and 116 only shot one other magazine, and it was prior to both, so there is no question that the smudge appears on every photograph taken in that particular camera after it initially appears.  You can find this info on page 12 of this pdf :

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/A16SurfacePhotoIndex_4.pdf

[bknight]

Here is a table of quick review that may aid in the question.

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.

[Willoughby]

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.

Ok, I no longer believe the contamination happened in the LM.  I had some figures wrong, and then I was wrong some more.  Here is a crude time line for the three magazines shot in the camera :

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)

Now, I'm not entirely familiar with the system.  Is the plate part of the magazine or the camera?  If it is part of the magazine, then the contamination could still have occurred in the LM between the two EVAs when they cleaned them.  If the plate is part of the camera, then the contamination necessarily occurred sometime between 06:04:24 and 06:05:18 when switching from MAG 107 to 114 - this was during EVA #2, so obviously not inside the LM between EVAs.

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. 

[bknight]

...
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)

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.

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.

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.

[Willoughby]

...
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)

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.

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.

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 included a link in a previous post that shows which magazines were shot in which camera.  Basically, the camera that shot magazine 114 did NOT also shoot 115, so it is not possible that 115 was switched out for 114 (if the source is accurate).  The information can be found on page 12 of this .pdf :

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/A16SurfacePhotoIndex_4.pdf

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.

What's funny about this is that I thought I had made some progress, but when I went back to read the original post by Astrobrant, he'd already figured all this out!  The point is that this contradicts the consensus that the smudge was introduced between EVAs when it seems pretty apparent that it could only have been introduced toward the end of EVA #2 when switching from 107 back to 114, so in all this research, no progress was made!!

[bknight]

...
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, 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.
And I agree that 114 was swapped with 107, not with 115.  You are correct that John's camera was the offending camera.  Most likely dust got into/behind the reseau at that swap out.

[Willoughby]

I'm not sure where you indicate which camera took which image...

Yeah, I can't find it either!  Perhaps I just MEANT to, but forgot to paste after copying it!

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?  That would be a way to explain how the contamination occurred in the LM, but wasn't transferred to the plate until the switch toward the end of EVA 2.  Although if this is the case, whatever was on the the magazine was exposed to the vacuum on the moon for about 7 hours before being put on the camera.