A Debunking of Jack White's Apollo Photo Analysis


The purpose of this Web page is to provide refuting arguments to 'moon hoax evidence' presented at the JFKresearch Assassination Forum. The JFKresearch forum is, in essence, a platform for Jack White to present his conspiracy theories regarding the John F. Kennedy assassination. Anyone who agrees with Mr. White's opinions is welcomed to participate in the discussions. However, anyone who disagrees too vehemently with Mr. White is typically banned from the forum.

In 2002 Jack White decided to turn his attention to the alleged Moon landing hoax and used the JFKresearch forum to present his evidence. Joined by Bill Dines, the two men made numerous posts to the forum alleging that photographs from the Apollo lunar landing missions of 1969-72 had been faked. One of the forum members, Jim Bartlett, asked me to intercede on his behalf and refute the claims being presented on the forum.

I had gained 'read only' membership to the forum and had my responses to the alleged evidence posted by Mr. Bartlett. After several of my refutations had been posted, Mr. Bartlett was informed that my participation in the discussion was no longer welcomed. The excuse given was that I apparently was not a JFK assassination researcher, thus I was not permitted to post to the forum. I find this ironic given that no one on the forum was discussing the JFK assassination at the time of my banishment.

This Web page was established to complete what I had started, that is, to refute the claims of Jack White and Bill Dines. Mr. Bartlett was kind enough to post a link to this site on the JFKresearch forum for those persons interested in reading a dissenting viewpoint. Originally created in April 2002 for members of the JFKresearch forum, this page received an upgrade in January 2004 to make it more appealing to other readers. Below you will find my original 2002 refutations along with comments added in 2004.

Posted 07-April-2002

Bill Dines, in his posts #821004, 821005, 821008 and 821010, argues that a series of Apollo 11 photos, showing Buzz Aldrin descending the LM ladder, has been staged. Many of Bill's arguments are directed against the lighting seen in the photos. Although I have some experience in photography, lighting is not my area of expertise; thus, let me direct you to another Web page:

PHOTO ANALYSIS: Buzz's Hot Spot

This Web page, by the authors of Moon Base Clavius, presents what I believe is a very convincing rebuttal to Bill's allegations. In fact, I urge everyone who has an interest in this topic to read the entire Clavius Web site. It contains some fabulous insight and is very well written.

Let us now proceed to the claims of Jack White. In his posts #820802, 820804, 808805, 820806, 820808, 820810, 820812, 820814, 820815, 820817, and 820818, Jack shows us several photos from the Apollo 17 mission, which he claims have been fabricated. After only a few minutes studying these photos, I noticed several fundamental flaws in Jack's arguments.

Let's start by taking a look at the following image, from Jack's post #820806:

Jack claims that the hill on the right is the same in each photo, but even a cursory review shows that it is NOT the same. Below I have identified three distinct features visible in each photo and connected them by red lines. (WARNING! The hoax theorists often make claims of 'identical' backgrounds; however, it usually takes only a few seconds of close examination to identify subtle but distinct differences.)

As you can clearly see, the triangles formed by connecting the terrain features are vastly different in each photo. This shows us that (1) the backgrounds are not identical, (2) the photos were taken from significantly different vantage points, and (3) the background is a real three-dimensional object. Of these, the third is probably most important, i.e. the background is a real 3-D object. How do we know this? If it were a flat backdrop, i.e. two-dimensional, as has been claimed, the relative positions of the terrain features would not change as observed. For example, let's assume the figures below represents three points, a, b and c, painted on a flat surface. Figure (1) shows the relative positions of a, b and c when viewed 'face on', that is when the angle between the background surface and the line-of-sight is 90 degrees. If the observer was to move such that the surface were observed at an oblique angle, say 45 degrees, the three points would be seen as illustrated in figure (2).

As can be seen, the only difference between figure (1) and figure (2) is that the horizontal distances have been compressed. The three points appear in the same sequence left-to-right and top-to-bottom. Also, the ratio of dimensions ab1 to bc1 is equal to the ratio of dimensions ab2 to bc2. In the photograph provided by Jack White, none of these rules hold true. The only way the three terrain features could shift relative positions as observed would be if they were located in three-dimensional space, that is, the features would have to be separated by a significant line-of-sight displacement. This strongly suggests that we are looking at a real hill or mountain, and eliminates the suggestion the background is an artificial backdrop.

Let's now get back to Jack White's original point. He claims that NASA has reused the right backdrop and spliced it together with two different left backdrops. But, as I have shown, the right half is not a backdrop, but is a real 3-D scene that has been photographed from different vantage points. In fact, it is very likely the camera positions were separated by a considerable distance, which would account for the differences in the terrain seen on the left side of the photos.

Let us take a look at another of Jack's images, this one from his post #820814:

Again Jack claims the hills to be "identical", but at close examination it is seen they are not. Below I have marked the horizontal relationship between several key features.

By analyzing ratios we can see that the photo showing the lunar module (LM) was taken from a significantly different vantage point than the other two photos. Let's use dimension 3-4 as our measuring stick. The table below gives the ratio of dimensions 1-2, 2-3, 4-5, and 5-6 to dimension 3-4 for each image:

1-22-3 4-55-6
Top2.7 1.75.6 0.6
Middle2.8 1.56.0 0.7
Bottom3.7 2.27.3 0.9

Remember, if the background hill were painted on a flat backdrop, the ratios would be the same in each photo. Since they are not, we can again conclude that the background has depth to it and is, in all likelihood, a real hill or mountain. Also, the ratios for the LM photo are much different than those of the other photos, indicating a different line-of-sight. This fact invalidates Jack's claim that the LM should be visible in every photo. Since the line-of-sight is different, there is no reason to believe that the LM would lie inside the field-of-view of the other photos. It is difficult to determine exact camera location, but it appears that the camera in the LM photo was positioned to the right of the others, and possibly separated by a considerable distance.

Now let's consider the following image from Jack's post #820810:

Compare the above image to the one below from Jack's post #820815:

Clearly, the left half of each image is taken from the same photo; however, Jack has spliced it to two different right half photos. The left and right halves of the bottom image appears to be a good match; however, the left and right halves of the top image is a complete mismatch. I'm amazed that Jack makes the claim of a "MATCHING BACKGROUND". He just took two completely different photos and manipulated them until he found an orientation that made the hills look like they align. The fact he was able to force a match is coincidence. The reason the LM is turned around and the lighting is from the opposite direction is because the photo is taken from the opposite direction. The hill behind the LM in the top-right photo is clearly different from the hill in the bottom-right photo. This is because they are two different hills located in opposite directions from the LM.

In regard to the bottom image, you might ask "how can the LM appear in two places in the same photo?" Don't forget, this image is a composite of two photos taken from different camera positions. The diagram below roughly shows the camera positions for each photo. The left photo was taken at position #1 and the right photo at position #2. Each photo shows the LM in the foreground with different background terrain. When the background terrain is spliced together to form a composite, we see what looks like two LMs in the foreground.

The following image is from Jack's post #820817. Along with it, he makes the following statement: "These two views of LEM 17 are from ALMOST THE SAME POINT OF VIEW. Note American flag in center of each. But observe that the backgrounds are totally different."

These views are clearly not from "ALMOST THE SAME POINT OF VIEW". When one looks at how the LM is rotated in relation to the optical axis, it is obvious the photos were taken from significantly different angles. We can estimate the camera angles by measuring the distances between the LM's reaction control thrusters and applying a little trigonometry. In the image below I demonstrate how these measurements are made.

Using this method I've calculated that the LM in the left photo is viewed at an angle of approximately 30 degrees from face-on, and the LM in the right photo is viewed at an angle of approximately 63 degrees from face-on -- a difference of 33 degrees. This means that the line-of-sight in each photo is looking in a completely different direction; thus, the background terrain immediately behind the LM should be, and is, very different. This can be seen easily by referring back to my previous diagram. When the camera is at position #1, the terrain that is directly behind the LM is outside the field-of-view of the camera at position #2. Likewise, when the camera is at position #2, the terrain that is directly behind the LM is outside the field-of-view of the camera at position #1.

I have not responded to all of Jack White's posts, but I have seen nothing that cannot be adequately explained by rational analysis. In general, I believe Jack is using flawed logic to arrive at erroneous conclusions.

Posted 08-April-2002

The following image is from Bill Dines' post #820839. He makes the comment "Two Apollo 17 photos that defy the laws of physics. How does a mountain appear bigger when you move further away from it?"

The hill, or mountain, is not larger; it just looks that way because the picture is enlarged. This is obvious when one examines the fiducials (i.e. crosshairs). Below I have resized the right photo to match the fiducial spacing of the left photo.

The mountain doesn't look so out of place now, does it? Obviously, the right photo was taken from farther away than the left photo; this accounts for the smaller apparent size of the LM. In fact, we can estimate the distance between the LM and the camera using a little trigonometry. The cameras used on the Apollo missions yielded an angular distance of about 10 to 11 degrees between fiducial pairs. Therefore, we can estimate the angular height of the LM by comparing it to the fiducial spacing in each photo. I estimate about 17 degrees in the left photo and 2.5 degrees in the right photo. Since the actual overall height of the LM is 6.4 meters, we can calculate the distance between the LM and the camera. I calculate 21 m for the left photo and 147 m for the right photo. We have insufficient information to estimate the distance to the mountain, but it is likely much farther than it appears. On Earth, we are accustomed to seeing distance terrain obscured by haze, but this doesn't happen on the Moon due to the lack of an atmosphere. It is very likely the mountain could lie several kilometers away. Therefore, the 126 m difference in camera positions has a minimal effect on the appearance of the distant mountain.

Posted 09-April-2002

Below is a composite image from Bill Dines' post #820842. He adds the comment "Here are two composites of FAKE moon photos from Apollo 17. Note that the top panorama shows the LEM at each end, even though the pan does not cover 360 degrees."

There is nothing particularly unusual about finding the LM in both the left and right photos. Had the astronaut taken this series of photographs as he rotated about a fixed point, then Bill would be right - we should not see the LM in both photos; however, this is not the case. These photos were taken at various times from different vantage points. Whether or not the LM is visible is simply a matter of the camera's location and line-of-sight. For example, an astronaut could walk around the LM, keeping his back to it at all times, and take a complete 360-degree panorama without ever seeing the LM. On the other hand, he could walk around the LM and take a series of photos, each centered on the LM, and produce a 360-degree panorama with the LM in every photo. This particular set of photos makes an approximate 180-degree panorama, which is obvious when you note that the two LM photos are taken from roughly opposite directions.

25-January-2004

While analyzing Jack White's and Bill Dines' claims it becomes clear that most of their arguments are based on perceived inconsistencies between foreground objects and background terrain. If it can be shown that no such discrepancies exist, then the hoax arguments evaporate. One way to do this is to construct an overall picture of the landing site and gauge the LM's location and orientation in relation to various terrain features. If it can be demonstrated that the individual LM 'snapshots' are consistent with the overall picture, then the alleged anomalies disappear.

The first step it to construct a reliable panoramic view of the landing site. By examining Apollo 17 images at NASA's Apollo Lunar Surface Journal it is found that frames #21490-21502 can be easily assembled into nice panorama.

From the images previously examined we see that as the LM is viewed from various angles different terrain appears behind it; therefore, we can use this information to draw conclusions about the relative positions of various terrain features. For example, say we have a photo showing the LM's left side with Crater A directly behind it. We have a second photo showing the LM's right side with Hill B directly behind it. We then know that Crater A and Hill B lie in opposite directions from the LM. If the panorama shows that Crater A and Hill B are 180 degrees apart, then we know the individual photos are consistent with the overall picture of the landing site.

An attempt was made to identify whether there was, in fact, a correlation between the individual LM photographs and the panoramic view. Below are the results of that effort...

Posted 11-April-2002

After viewing Apollo 17 photos #21490 through #21502 I created the following composite image. This series of photos appears to have been taken from the same location, hence it forms a very good panoramic view; however, it is not a full 360-degree view. Notice, the mountains at the far right and far left do not match-up exactly - there is a section missing.

I next estimated the camera angles for five LM photographs as follows:

White's post #820815, left photo 30 degrees
White's post #820815, right photo 61 degrees
Dines' post #820839, left photo 157 degrees
Dines' post #820839, right photo 170 degrees
White's post #820810, right photo 260 degrees

I then took these five LM photos and identified terrain features that could be matched to features in the above panorama. I then superimposed the LM images onto the panorama aligning the common features.

Now, imagine yourself standing directly in front of the LM. If you sight a straight line from your position through the LM, it would intersect some distance terrain, which we could call zero degrees azimuth. If you move 30 degrees around the LM to your left and sight another line through the LM, the distant terrain could be called azimuth 30 degrees. Move another 30 degrees and you can sight 60 degrees azimuth, and so on.

Every photo that contains the LM can be used to identify the azimuth of the terrain that is located directly behind it. The camera angles that I calculated previously are, in fact, a measure of azimuth, and can be used for this purpose. Using this system, zero azimuth is arbitrarily defined as the direction opposite the LM's front hatch.

Using my panorama, the camera angle of each superimposed LM image is the approximate azimuth at that particular location. From this data, I was able to derive an azimuth scale and affix it to the image. As expected, the numbers worked out very nicely. It's not perfect, but remember, the camera angles are centered on the LM, while the panorama photos are centered on some other location; therefore, some differences in perspective are to be expected. Below are my final results. The scale across the top is the estimated azimuth, while the numbers printed beneath each LM image is the camera angle.

Despite all of Jack's and Bill's claims about how badly NASA messed up in 'faking' these photos, in reality, NASA got it right. This analysis shows that the relative positions of camera, LM and terrain is correct, thus inflicting a serious blow to the claim the photos are faked.

25-January-2004

Although I have credited some of the above JFKresearch forum posts to Bill Dines it seems obvious that Jack White is the real 'brains' behind the effort to disprove the Moon landings. (I think some of Bill Dines' posts may be repeats of earlier claims made by Jack White.) The claims I refute on this Web page are only a sampling of the alleged hoax evidence Mr. White has posted on his forum; however, from what I have seen, his other evidence is equally baseless.

It is my opinion that Jack White started his investigation from the position the Apollo landings was a hoax and all subsequent effort has been a pursuit to find evidence supporting that preconception. His unshakable belief in a hoax has rendered him incapable of performing a rational and unbiased investigation. His analyses and conclusions are seriously flawed, amateurish and, quite frankly, foolish. Mr. White seems totally incapable of seeing the obvious. For example, he puts two photos side-by-side and claims that the background hills are 'identical' when it is clear to most others that they are not identical (same hill yes, but taken from different angles). It is impossible to take Mr. White seriously because he has shown repeated inability to perform the simplest photo analysis.

Now I will not go so far as to claim I have proven the Apollo 17 photographs where taken on the Moon, but I believe I have shown there is nothing in the photo record to suggest the photographs were not taken on the Moon. Furthermore, I have ably demonstrated that Jack White's and Bill Dines' analyses are flawed and their conclusions in error.

To read more about Jack White, please visit BIBLIOGRAPHY: Jack White at Moon Base Clavius.

Home