It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Lunar refraction? Light where there should be none...

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 09:07 PM
link   
This photograph:
spaceflight.nasa.gov...

Taken by Apollo 11 on the way home. Or was it?

Heres the big version:


And heres what happens when you turn up brightness and contrast:


Now here is a photograph of the moon shot by the hubble telescope, which we all know is in space.
hubblesite.org...
external image

Now, what happens to THIS photo when we increase the contrast and brightness to their extremes?


Look at that, no refraction.

Now I've only got a highschool physics education but I know what refraction is. When light hits gas it scatters in all directions, this is why the sky is blue in the daytime.

Things shot in space with the right apature, exposure and film speed to not catch stars should not have any sort of 'blur trial'. So unless the camera had gas in front of it I can't see how this happened.

I suppose one could argue that the photo was taken from inside the cabin. I don't know where or how the photo was taken, just that it was taken from the spacecraft.

It is also interesting that the photos look so different.

Anyway maybe someone else has an oppinion on this finding?


[edit on 7-11-2006 by Yandros]




posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 11:25 PM
link   
looks like a difference in exposure to me.



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 12:22 AM
link   
Looks more like the light is bleeding to me. Hard to tell without looking at the original negative. I was fortunate enough to spend some years working in a darkroom before the digital craze entered the world and have seen many examples of weird lightbleed in silver emolusion.

What puzzles me the most about these images is how terrible the image quality from the Hubble telescope is! Seriously, amateur astronomers shoot quality exeding this stuff



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 03:36 AM
link   
hi , YANDROS :

before proceeding , can i just request clarification , what are you positing ? appologies - but it is not clear to me whether your position is :

1 -the picture was taken from earth , or LEO so that the aerths atmpsphre is causing the refraction

OR

2 - the moon has an atmosphere , which is causing refraction .


i would just like to point out that that the picture you cite : AS11 44 6667 , was most definitly taken from within the command module .

having established this , please consider that the Apllo command module windows had multiple layers , of differeing thicknesses , serperated by air gaps .


The cabin has five windows, made of 0.25-inch (6.35mm) double-paned tempered glass on the inside, and 0.7-inch (1.778cm) amorphous-fused silicon on the outside. UV-ray blocking coating is applied in these outer surfaces, and non-reflective coating to the inside. The outer glass can stand up to a maximum temperature of about 1540 degrees Celsius (2800 Fahrenheit). A covering shield made of aluminum is installed inside all of the windows


i trust you are familiar with the principle of a psism ?

lastly what is the methodology of your image enhancement ?

is there any scientific merit to your enhancements ? you could have have just " tweaked values " at random , untill the result you desired were acheived

can you give us the exact adjustments for :

brighntess , contrast and gamma correction you used ,

and confirmation that the same values were used for all " enhacements " as i have several pictures of the moon taken from ISS and other pictures that you may want to apply the same analysis to .



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 06:00 AM
link   
Hi ape,

I do not have a definite position, I am looking for clarification.

However we can see from the Hubble photograph that the moon has no atmosphere, which leaves only your first option there. Either that or it was taken in strips by an unmanned module then constructed onto a sphere/globe and shot on a black backdrop.

It is also possible, now that you have confirmed it was shot from within the module, that a thin layer of air (or the construction of the window) could create this effect; although I feel this is unlikely.

As for enhancement… everyone understands the concept of brightness and contrast controls. Increasing the contrast makes it easier to see the slight variations in colour you normally wouldn’t see, and increasing the brightness makes it easy to see dark colours.

There is nothing particularly scientific about digital photo analysis; every pixel has a number assigned to it which indicates its colour but the human brain cannot ‘see’ a picture by reading a string of numbers. So in order to see the slight differences filters must be applied. Conceptually this is similar to false colour imaging.

Regardless, it doesn’t matter what I did provided I did the same thing to both photos – which were high quality, high resolution images void of any compression artifacts.

All this image shows is that most of the black pixels around the moon in the first photograph, which should have been 100% black, were not. And, in addition, their intensity diminishes by the inverse of the square of the distance – which is a good indication that it is due to refraction.



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yandros
I do not have a definite position,


Yes you do , you have already rejected the NASA explanation , for reasons that I hope you will explain .


which leaves only your first option there.


NO ! that is not the only option – there is the published explanation – which is that the image was taken from the Apollo command module en route – what is your reasoning for rejecting this ?


Either that or it was taken in strips by an unmanned module then constructed onto a sphere/globe and shot on a black backdrop.


WOW ! You are just adding extra complexity ad hoc to rationalize your refusal to accept the published origin of the photo – which BTW is the simplest and most rational ,

A “ robot probe “ could take an image of the moon at the resolution shown in a single exposure , all the other probes manage this simple feat .

Lastly , as you claim that there are no errors in the image – please indicate what stitching technique was used – as other photo mosaics show very obvious stitching anomalies


It is also possible, now that you have confirmed it was shot from within the module, that a thin layer of air (or the construction of the window) could create this effect; although I feel this is unlikely.


WHY ??? what scientific rationale do you have to assume that 3 panels of glass > 29mm thick would be optically neutral ?


The windows each consist of inner and outer panes. The inner windows are made of tempered silica glass with 1/4-inch thick double panes, separated by a tenth of an inch. The outer windows are made of amorphous-fused silicon with a single pane of seven-tenths of an inch thick. Each pane has an anti-reflective coating on the external surface and a blue-red reflective coating on the inner surface to filter out most infrared and all ultraviolet rays




There is nothing particularly scientific about digital photo analysis


SCREAM !!!!! you cannot be serious , my further reactions to that idiocy cannot be printed .



Regardless, it doesn’t matter what I did provided I did the same thing to both photos


I guess the principle of scientific repeatability is an alien concept to you ?

please give us the numeric values for the adjustments you made .

If you cannot provide them how can we know they were identical ?

I have several other images [ from the ISS , Apollo and unmanned probes] that are relevant to this discussion – and would like to see what effect your adjustments would have on them


– which were high quality, high resolution images void of any compression artifacts.



their intensity diminishes by the inverse of the square of the distance – which is a good indication that it is due to refraction.


HUSSAR …. Art last a semi valid point . yes I agree refraction is a likely cause

Ape points at the 29mm total thickness triple glazed window .

That sir is the source of your refraction .

All your previous “ arguments “ are hand waving … to allow you to dismiss the official explanation which for some inexplicable reason … you cannot bring yourself to accept . thus your bizarre handwaving



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Ape,

Don't tell me what I think. How can you possibly claim to know what I think.

I am under the impression that the solar radiation would have simply killed any men sent to and from the moon. Considering that the maximum protection they had was about a cm of Aluminum they would have been hit with the full force of solar radiation. Which I might add is probably more than 1000 times worse than the hottest part of Chernobyl.

My thoughts are that it is plausible they faked all the publicized trips, in particular Apollo 16, whereby the astronauts were actually doing a surface walk when the largest solar storm in the 20th century rotated to face them. Completely uninjured?

Your name does serve you well, by the way. I think yours is a case of ‘explaining away’ evidence which is precisely what NASA does. The explanations only need to be barely reasonable for people to believe it. Because they do not want to know the truth.

While I am not decidedly made up over this I still feel that an inch of glass would not create this effect, after all the glass on the Hubble lenses, and soviet unmanned craft makes absolutely none of this effect. And its not a small effect either. In addition it is typical of photographing something on a black background with a spotlight on it, or something with a large amount of atmosphere, in space – which essentially is the same setup but bigger.

However I do not rule out that this photo is legitimate, I just question it – as I do all the man lunar missions because of the vast array of inexplicable anomalies in the photographs, film and overall science.

Finally I’ll say this. The Russians still haven’t put a man on the moon. What’s their reason? Radiation.

P.S: My Photoshop application does not take numeric adjustments for brightness and contrast, that I know of. Nor are there scientific units for either in digital photograph - that I know of. Please direct me to a photo editing suite which does provide these scientific measurements and I will remake the filter on it so you can see some numbers which should make you happy. Alternatively you could just open Photoshop and turn contrast and brightness up to the max they will go and have a look at the images, or better yet you could simply look at the shots I posted, because that’s all I did.

[edit on 9-11-2006 by Yandros]



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 03:06 PM
link   
First off I will address your glaring deficiencies with Photoshop .


Originally posted by Yandros

P.S: My Photoshop application does not take numeric adjustments for brightness and contrast, that I know of.


Does not have , or you are too clueless to find them???? – because if you really do have adobe Photoshop they are right there on the main toolbar :

image > adjustments > brightness and contrast .



Nor are there scientific units for either in digital photograph - that I know of.


Yes there bloody well are .



What the hell is that tool bar ??????

Might I recommend “ Photoshop for dummies “ ? if you cannot find elementary controls on the main tool bar – you need help .

But to spoon feed you : image > adjustments > brightness and contrast .


Please direct me to a photo editing suite which does provide these scientific measurements


Photoshop CS2 , adobe image ready , the gimp . irfanview – the list goes on , so long infact – I have to ask again – what rancid excuse for a photo editing suite are you using ?

Is the problem your pathetic excuse for a photo editor – or your utter inability to use it ?


Alternatively you could just open Photoshop and turn contrast and brightness up to the max they will go


If I turn them “ up to the max “ – I get a pure white field



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yandros
Don't tell me what I think. How can you possibly claim to know what I think.


I merely repeated what you said , I did not put any words in your mouth


I am under the impression that the solar radiation would have simply killed any men sent to and from the moon. Considering that the maximum protection they had was about a cm of Aluminum they would have been hit with the full force of solar radiation.


No – the shielding / insulation of the lunar modules was adequate for the exposure they were subject too .


Which I might add is probably more than 1000 times worse than the hottest part of Chernobyl.


Where the hell did you get that figure from ?????????????


My thoughts are that it is plausible they faked all the publicized trips, in particular Apollo 16, whereby the astronauts were actually doing a surface walk when the largest solar storm in the 20th century rotated to face them. Completely uninjured?


It was not the “ largest solar storm “ of the 20th century – nor was it “ rotated to face them “ – so please stop reading lies .




While I am not decidedly made up over this I still feel that an inch of glass would not create this effect, after all the glass on the Hubble lenses, and soviet unmanned craft makes absolutely none of this effect. And its not a small effect either. In addition it is typical of photographing something on a black background with a spotlight on it, or something with a large amount of atmosphere, in space – which essentially is the same setup but bigger.


Why do you honestly believe that 3 panes of glass > 29mm thick will be optically neutral ???

As for the optics shields on the Hubble and unmanned probes – first they are much thinner , and of one piece construction – and more important they are optically calibrated to the instruments .

The cameras on the systems you cite are all designed as a single unit – including outer shielding / lenses covers – they were built to take the best quality picture – free of distortion , with their shields in place all calibrations accounted for this


the Apollo cameras were hand held , and the glazing the the lunar modules was optimized for structural strength , pressure integrity and radiation / thermal protection .

Its optical characteristics were secondary to safety concerns



However I do not rule out that this photo is legitimate, I just question it – as I do all the man lunar missions because of the vast array of inexplicable anomalies in the photographs, film and overall science.


Your “ anomalies “ are all strawmen , red herrings , blatant lies or arguments from ignorance



Finally I’ll say this. The Russians still haven’t put a man on the moon. What’s their reason? Radiation.


No , it was not radiation – it was the “ space race “ , with no prize for second place – the Soviet heavy lift rocket was plagued by technical problems – and when apollo11 was successful – they simply shelved their lunar program

The soviets had lost of the infrastructure in place for a manned moon mission – their lunar Lander / command module combo was successfully sent on an unmanned mission to lunar orbit – so that was a viable element of their planning



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 08:08 PM
link   
I think you are grossly mistaken about the Van Allen radiation belts. Shortly before Apollo 11 it is reported that NASA and the US military exploded a one megaton nuclear bomb 270 miles above earth to ‘clear a path’ through the belts. But instead ended up making the inner most belt 100 times more active than it originally was.

Furthermore, NASA’s figures for the depth of the belts are incorrect. They are 1/3 that of Van Allen’s measurements/calculations.

Finally, the soviets have 21 firsts in space. First man, woman, dog, etc. etc. They would never have just given up at the drop of a hat like that. And clearly you are mistaken as to the status of their space program. Their technology was always superior, as were their rockets.

I think you had better watch this documentary before you bite your own tongue off:
video.google.com.au...

And on a side note I use a Photoshop clone called photo impact. Not that it matters, because: a) you clearly figured out how to adjust the values on your own (well done) and b) the units used are not scientific, they are in fact percentage based. Considering I told you to 'turn them all the way up' I think that constitutes a percentage. Indeed you managed to work it out from my instructions, again well done.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join