How was Jack White's adjusting image parameters debunked?

[bknight]

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

[Count Zero]

By rubbing two brain-cells together (a numerical advantage Jack sorely lacked).

[bknight]

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.

[HeadLikeARock]

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.

[bknight]

...
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?

[smartcooky]

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.

[smartcooky]

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

[bknight]

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

[bknight]

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)

[ineluki]

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?

[bknight]

Could any differences that Jack "developed" be explained by different image conversion compression differences?

[frenat]

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.

[bknight]

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.

[Allan F]

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

[bknight]

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.