The Daedalus Ziggurat from NASA image “5564.jpg”
In this section, I will address
Stuart’s (PS4NASA) claim that the Ziggurat image is a “fraud” because in his
opinion, the lighting geometry is “wrong.”
What Stuart (PS4NASA) said:
“3. Why the shadowed parts of his
ziggurat are lit up when they’re in shadow, on top of a hill, and not facing
anything that should reflect light at them?”
Response: I guess that we just
fundamentally have a disagreement about this Stuart (PS4NASA). Again, he keeps
repeating this claim, but no matter how many times he does, he can’t make it
true. They are facing “something” that would reflect light at them and account
for the lighting geometry in as1120pyramid20smallue2.jpg. I see brightly lit
hills all around the depression on the left side of the Ziggurat that would
reflect light into the shadowed area under dispute.
In his original post, Stuart
(PS4NASA) claimed that ALL of the shadows on the Moon are absolute black, and
there are few (if any) gradations of light and dark on the Moon because of a
lack of atmosphere. “If you’re in shadow, you’re in shadow and it’s going to be
pitch-black (or almost pitch-black).” He repeats this claim in a video he made
attacking the Ziggurat as a hoax and calling Mr. Hoagland incompetent and a
liar.
As I pointed out in my last post, this is
categorically untrue. I have seen
hundreds, if not thousands, of lunar images where the shadows are far from
“pitch-black (or almost pitch-black).” I will show you some later in this
article. You actually have to be pretty dumb to even make such a claim. And when
this inconvenient fact was pointed out
to him on his YouTube video in the comments section, even Stuart (PS4NASA)
agreed that this claim was, as he likes to put it, “factually incorrect.”
You “thought of that an hour after you posted the video?”
Really? So you knew that your statement that “If you’re in shadow, you’re in
shadow and it’s going to be pitch-black (or almost pitch-black)” was factually
incorrect, but you just “forgot?”
I’m sorry Stuart (PS4NASA), did I miss something? I thought
you were an astrophysics expert and all that stuff? I mean, wouldn’t a Brainiac
like you with all those important degrees who boasts about spending all that
time processing images of the Moon have known that from the get-go? I did, but
when I pointed it out in my last blog post, you asserted that I didn’t know
what I was talking about. And then, even
after you “remembered” that your claim was false, you not only didn’t retract
it, but you still made it a structural pillar of your claim that the Ziggurat
image is “a hoax.” You even posted another, longer video still making the same
false claim after you admit “remembering” there is such a thing as light
scattering on the Moon.
Dr. Stuart Robbins
So in other words, Stuart (PS4NASA), you knew from July
22nd on when you “remembered” that light
scatters into shadows on the Moon that these claims were false yet you never
uploaded a video correcting this claim, and you still continue to defend the
claim on you blog. And you have the gall to say I’m “paranoid” because I don’t
trust either your competence or your intentions?
Riiiigght…
Then, Stuart (PS4NASA) goes to his fallback position. He
agrees that yeah, as the viewer pointed out, craters on the Moon are NOT
“pitch-black (or almost pitch-black),” but the ones around the Ziggurat really
have to be, because “The region has no hills nearby that would scatter light
onto the ziggurat surface.”
Oh really?
Since the lunar surface is made mostly of glass, titanium
and aluminum, it tends to be very highly reflective. That’s why there’s
something called “backscatter” illuminating the astronauts in all the pictures
of them on the lunar surface where they are facing away from the sun. The
photos of Buzz Aldrin descending the ladder are also proof that you don’t need
any nearby hills to scatter light on the Moon. The surface does a fine job of
that all by itself. It is also what
Stuart’s (PS4NASA) commentator “TheWonkyAstronomer” was trying to explain to
him in the comments on his YouTube video. (More on this in my upcoming book, AncientAliens on the Moon.) So the truth is, all of the shadows on AS11-38-5564 should
be illuminated by at least some light.
But they aren’t.
When you enhance the NASA version
of 5564, as we’ve already established, all you get is the pitch black, painted over
shadows where you should see details of structures and/or terrain. In other
words, the lighting geometry of as1120pyramid20smallue2.jpg is exactly right,
and Stuart’s (PS4NASA)’s claims -- and the official version of 5564 -- are
completely wrong.
Let’s look at the lighting geometry of AS11-38-5564 and
illustrate this.
Current NASA version of AS11-38-5564 (contrast increased
20%)
Pretty obviously, the light is
coming from the upper right, which is why all the shadows are being cast to the
left in this image. The top of the left wall (let’s just call it the “left
side” instead of arguing about east and west, shall we?) of the Ziggurat is
being illuminated, and the wall is casting a shadow into the depression below.
As the arrows indicate, the raised, reflective “hills” beyond are perfectly
aligned to reflect or “backscatter” light into the deeply shadowed area where
we can see a wall in the original Ziggurat photo. On the NASA version of 5564,
all we see is a painted over black blotch. Again, given that the lunar soil is
made up of primarily glass beads, aluminum and titanium – the equivalent of
millions of tiny glass and metal mirrors-- I just can’t see how any “normal”
person can conclude that the geometry is “wrong” to illuminate this depression.
But maybe Stuart (PS4NASA) isn’t “normal.”
To better understand what “backscatter” is, let’s just
quickly consult Wikipedia, shall we?
“In physics, backscatter (or
backscattering) is the reflection of waves, particles, or signals back to the
direction from which they came. It is a diffuse reflection due to scattering,
as opposed to specular reflection like a mirror” [emphasis mine].
OK, so if the light in this image
was being reflected “back to the direction from which they came,” then it is
obvious that the blacked out depression below the left wall should be
illuminated, but in the NASA image its isn’t. This is especially true because as
the article said, backscatter is a diffuse reflection, meaning the light
scatters in all directions.
This is yet again more
confirmation that contrary to what Stuart (PS4NASA) claims, the lighting
geometry of as1120pyramid20smallue2.jpg is absolutely correct. It also
reinforces the argument I made in my last post, which is that the shadow cast
by the left wall of Ziggurat should not be absolute black, and that the gray
part of the shadow, the part that wasn’t painted over by some NASA goon,
reflects (pun intended) the real and far more realistic lighting we should see
on the NASA version of 5564.
And as we look closer, we can see
another example of how Stuart (PS4NASA) has gotten the lighting geometry
completely wrong; the “Temple” area.
as1120pyramid20smallue2.jpg
with Temple area contrast enhanced
The “Temple” is the square
structure that sits at the exact lateral center of the Ziggurat, with a ramp
extending into it from the front. It also has a bright colored dome on top, a
bright band around the top level and beveled corners. All of these are plainly
visible in the original image but have faded, though not disappeared
completely, in the NASA version of 5564. You will also note that the bright
band extends around the left wall of the Temple housing, and there is a pattern
of four bright spots on the left vertical wall. Again, according to Stuart
(PS4NASA), this area should be in complete, absolute shadow and none of these
features should be visible because according to him, there is nothing for light
to bounce off of (backscatter) and illuminate the area. He cites this as a
“proof” that the Ziggurat photo is a fake or hoax, and sets this as one of the
“three points of what Mike must explain” before he’ll admit the Ziggurat image
is likely real, and by implication, the official NASA version has been faked.
No problem.
Besides the hills and terrain
features I already listed, as you can see in any version of 5564, even the fake
NASA one, the top left wall and the “back” wall of the Ziggurat are brightly
illuminated. Contrary to what Stuart (PS4NASA) has asserted, these inner walls
of the Ziggurat are perfectly positioned to scatter light back into the
shadowed area on the left side of the Temple area (remember, backscattering by definition scatters light in all directions). Again, this puts the lie to his
claim that the shadows should be absolute black or near black as they are in
the official NASA version of 5564, and confirms that there is nothing at all
incorrect, wrong or suspicious about the lighting in
as1120pyramid20smallue2.jpg.
(One other note; I make no claim
that the placement of my arrows labeled “light” is perfect in any of these
images. I do assert however that it is very close to correct, certainly close
enough to support the arguments, and in any event, irrelevant. The simple fact
that the hills beyond the left wall and the top of the inner walls are
illuminated at all is a de-facto "proof" that light is being backscattered into the
shadowed areas in question. I’m sure his next assertion will be that “yeah,
well maybe the geometry is right, but the intensity isn’t enough.” Or something
like that. He will still be wrong.)
Next, Stuart (PS4NASA) then goes
on to make a claim that will get him into even bigger trouble:
“Mike, all you have to do is look
anywhere in that – or ANY other similar image at ANY crater from this set – and
you will see that the shadowed parts of the craters are not lit by scattered
light from the highlighted wall. That is a factual statement of observation,
and I challenge anyone to find fault with it.”
OK, I'll take that challenge.
First of all, if you’re talking
about AS11-38-5564, we’ve already established that A) you don’t understand (or
“remember”) anything about the phenomenon called “backscattering,” and B) that
the only reason the shadowed parts of the craters in that image “are not lit by
scattered light” is because somebody at NASA painted over them with a
pitch-black brush. But why argue when we can put your specious assertion to the
test?
There is another series of NASA
photographs, taken at virtually the same time as AS11-38-5564, that show the
same area around Daedalus crater. The only difference is that these images are
color and used SO-368 Ektachrome MS ASA64 film, and possibly an 80-mm lens,
although according to NASA documents, they may have been taken with a 250-mm
lens. In either case, the photos are of very high quality and will play a major
part in our story. They, like AS11-38-5564, were taken by one of the Apollo 11
astronauts as the Command and Service Module Columbia was leaving the Moon just
after Trans Earth Injection. Obviously, one astronaut had a Hasselblad camera
with the black and white (Panatomic-X) film, and one astronaut had a Hasselblad
camera with SO-368 Ektachrome MS ASA64 color film. As Columbia flew past
Daedalus on its way home, the astronauts were snapping away with their power
winders documenting the area out of the windows of the Columbia.
One of the photos they took is
AS11-44-6609. Taken just a few seconds before the Ziggurat image AS11-38-5564,
it shows a clear view into Daedalus crater under the same lighting conditions,
and certainly, most “normal” people would agree, constitutes a “similar image”
to 5564. And guess what? You can see details in the shadows. Even without ANY
enhancement, you can see the terrain of the crater rim in the shadowed area. So
if Stuart (PS4NASA) is right, and there are no craters in the area that have
light scattered/reflected into them, how is this possible?
It isn’t. Because he’s wrong.
Shadowed rim of lunar crater
Daedalus from NASA image AS11-44-6609. Note terrain detail visible in shadowed
area without enhancement.
Of course, when you use the
“Adjust Lighting... Shadows/Highlights” tool and that nifty little slider named
“Lighten Shadows,” (remember them Stuart [PS4NASA]?) it becomes even more
obvious that Stuart’s (PS4NASA) claim that “ANY other similar image at ANY
crater from this set – and you will see that the shadowed parts of the craters
are "not lit by scattered light” is fallacious:
It gets even worse for Stuart
(PS4NASA) when you consider that, unlike the Ziggurat area, there are no nearby
hills to scatter light back into this shadowed area of Daedalus crater. See,
there don’t need to be, because his assertion that you have to have “very
steep, fresh crater walls” nearby just to “reflect SOME light into the shadowed
region…” is completely wrong. This photo, taken under the exact same lighting
conditions and at virtually the exact same time, is proof of that. Light was
scattering into the shadowed areas of the craters and depressions near Daedalus
all over the place on that day, without the need for “very steep, fresh crater walls”
to reflect the light back. There is nothing but a flat and nearly featureless
crater floor opposite the sun.
Now, as an update to his
response, Stuart (PS4NASA) added this little tidbit he got from Bloated Sack of
Protoplasm James Oberg:
James Oberg – Bloated Sack of
Protoplasm
“Edited to Add (08/08/2012): As
James Oberg mentioned in the comments, and I’ve heard Richard Hoagland claim
many times, Mike and Richard supposedly have a set of near-original copies of
all Apollo images. Why Mike then relied on an internet game forum post for the
“original” or even on LPI is a mystery.”
This is of course intended as a snide
little dig at the site where I first found the original as1120pyramid20smallue2.jpg, but
it applies here.
First though, yet another
correction. The claim made by James Oberg (BSOP) and repeated by Stuart
(PS4NASA) without question that “Mike and Richard supposedly have a set of
near-original copies of all Apollo images.” is, like so many of their other
claims, categorically false. KEN JOHNSTON, who Oberg worked with for years at
NASA, has a set of some near-original prints of Apollo photographs from all the
different missions. Neither Richard nor I have EVER claimed that either of us
have these photographs, nor anything near a complete set. They are Ken’s
property, plain and simple. The full story of how KEN came to possess these is
told in Dark Mission and will be briefly recounted in Ancient Aliens on the Moon.
If in fact Stuart (PS4NASA) had actually read Dark Mission, he’d know that.
Ken Johnston, Jr. working at NASA
in the 1960’s
Ken, however, being a generally
nice guy and having a generally honest curiosity about what’s really on the
Moon, does occasionally from time to time allow us to scan or borrow some of
these photos, if he has them. Well it turns out that AS11-44-6609 is one of the
ones he had lying around.
So at my request, Ken scanned the
image and sent it to me. The scan has pixel dimensions of 3840 x 3952 (I’ll
leave it to Brainiac to figure out how many megapixels that is) and, except for
a little wear and tear looks identical to the image of AS11-44-6609 I
downloaded from the Apollo Flight Journal site.
And guess what? It absolutely
confirms what’s on the Flight Journal version:
There, in the shadows, in stark
contrast to everything that Stuart (PS4NASA) has asserted about shadows and
light scattering on the Moon, are the same rocky features we see in the Flight
Journal scan. This is now a confirmation from a “near-original” analog source
that Stuart’s (PS4NASA) model of light scattering on the Moon is completely
wrong.
In fact, this is what ALL THE
SHADOWS ON AS11-38-5564 should also look like. But they don’t. They look like
Oberg (BSOP) took a paintbrush tool and painted over them, as any “normal”
person can plainly see. And there’s a reason for that; it’s because that’s
exactly what somebody at NASA actually did. And they obviously did it to hide
some of the features we see very clearly in “as1120pyramid20smallue2.jpg.”
NASA version of AS11-38-5564.
Black areas are all one color, absolute complete black. Real shadows are gray
areas to the left. Black area represents portion of image painted over by NASA
“image processors.”
As a final test, I challenge
anyone with Photoshop or a similar program to try it themselves. Take any image
of the Moon where there is detail visible in the shadows and then get out your
paintbrush, set it to absolute black (shade-0) and go to town on it. It will look
exactly like what NASA did to the craters in “5564.jpg” and the histograms will
match as well.
Terrain features of AS11-44-6609
blacked out with paintbrush tool in Photoshop. Note it is identical to darkened
areas of NASA version of AS11-38-5564. Histograms are also an exact match.
Which pretty much wraps it up for
Stuart’s (PS4NASA) point #3.
So again, just to review:
1. Stuart’s (PS4NASA) claim that
shadows on the Moon should be absolute black is false. Photos of the astronauts
on the Moon and from orbital reconnaissance photography prove this. Further,
Stuart (PS4 NASA) knew this to be true, from at least July 23, 2012, when he
admitted as much to a commenter, “TheWonkyAstronomer” in the comments section
of his YouTube video.
2. Despite knowing that this claim was false,
Stuart (PS4NASA) continued to make this claim in written analysis on his blog
and in a later video beyond July 23rd, 2012.
3. Stuart’s (PS4NASA) claim that
the illumination of the shadows on as1120pyramid20smallue2.jpg is somehow evidence
that the image is a “hoax” or a “fraud” is false. A simple review of the
lighting geometry and a rudimentary (Wikipedia-level) review of the concept of
backscattering prove him wrong.
4. Photos taken of the Daedalus
region on the same mission, at the same time and under the same lighting
conditions show illumination in many craters contrary to his assertions.
5. The complete lack of similar
illumination in the shadowed areas of the official NASA image “5564.jpg” is
proof that the image has been painted over before being uploaded to the
official NASA site. Experiments on other images with a paintbrush tool produce
identical results to “5564.jpg.”
But the truth is, none of this
actually matters. All of the technical back and forth, the “gotcha” games, the
attempts to slander and harass me on my own Facebook page – none of it matters.
Because I’ve got the goods. I’ve got the proof that the Ziggurat is really
there, on the back side of the Moon.
And that brings us (finally) to
point #2…
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.