Re: revisiting Apollo

From: Yoda (briansterling_at_rogers.com)
Date: 07/19/04 

Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 19:20:57 GMT

Jay Windley wrote:

> "Yoda" <briansterling@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:FTUKc.671$yhj1.562@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> |
> | > Where do you get the idea that you didn't say that the pictures taken on
> | > the Moon are hoaxed?
> |
> | Explain the picture of the moon rock with the letter C on it please?
>
> Easy. The mark is not to be found on either of the duplication masters used
> to make research copies. It's not to be found on the original. And it's
> not to be found on *any* version of the *other* photograph of the same
> rock -- which no conspiracy theorist seems yet to have seen. The mark is
> found on exactly one physical copy of one photo -- a print at LPI. That
> this print was subsequently scanned and widely distributed as a JPEG is
> irrelevant.
>
> The conspiracy theorists never went farther than the JPEG. They never tried
> to trace it back to any authoritative source. Had they done so, they would
> have been led to LPI's photo file and that one print. And had they found
> that print and put it under a microscope, they would have seen that it was a
> hair that found its way into the optical path during printing, since it
> quite clearly lies *atop* the photo and is not in it.
>
> Had they looked at either of the duplication masters, they would have failed
> to see the mark. The "anomaly" here is the reliance of self-proclaimed
> photo analysts on downloaded JPEGs as substitutes for doing real
> investigation.

Fair enough.

>
> | That is a lie. I never named the camera in question. And when I said
> | "camera", I was talking about video camera being used on the moon...like
> | as in the moon walk.
>
> No. The comment was made in the context of photography and stars. We were
> talking about still photos and you brought up the alleged poor quality of
> the cameras.

No the comment I made (and I know what I meant and what I said, so don't
be a ***, eh) was concerning video cameras. I guess I should have
spelled that out exactly...v-i-d-e-o... Everyone assumed I was talking
about a "still" camera. That assumption only translated into 'this guy
  is a troll and a kook' when in reality the fault is on them for
misreading what I said.

>
> | Well the quality of the some of those moon pics are downright
> | laughable.
>
> Such as?

Such as the glare showing up when Neil Armstrong gets off the lander.
That glare is a laughable.

>
> And are they the fault of the camera, or the carelessness of the
> photographer? I guarantee you that if I hand a Hasselblad to a novice
> photographer, the quality of the pictures that come out of it will suffer.

I've owned a Hasselblad, and I really don't care for them. It is just a
name, nothing more.