What is wrong with the Apollo 12 SUN? (Warning to dialup users: large images)

After this became somewhat of a hot debate subtopic in my NASA vacuum chamber thread I decided to dedicated a separate thread to it:

The Apollo 12 sun, does not look at all real. In fact, I believe, it looks very much like a flood light, or stadium light. Judge for yourself:

First as a control; this is the sun, from space, as observed by the onboard shuttle camera on the 2007 launch of Atlantis:



Now the Apollo 12 photos:







It would seem we have a series of 9 photos, taken one after another of the Apollo 12 ‘Sun.’ These photos are: AS12-46-6761 through to and including AS12-46-6769. I have only included four here.

But when analyzed for intensity, one obtains a rather interesting result:



It would seem that the ‘Sun’ is inconsistent in intensity, as though it contained a light bulb…

It is my feeling that these photographs are particularly damming to the credibility of the Apollo missions. If these are fake, which I believe is almost beyond doubt, then what are the chances that much of the other footage is as well?

Credit for this discovery goes to a youtube video: youtube.com...
Authored by a youtuber called: greenmagoos

Another photo of the sun from space:



Update:


Here we see the high resolution ‘sun’ from the Apollo 12 missions. And what’s that in the middle of it? Why it’s a crosshair.

Now, remember the debunkers of the moon hoax conspiracy informed us rudely that crosshairs could disappear or have parts of them disappear if the illumination of the object the camera was pointed at was high enough. If the sun isn’t of high illumination, then what is?

So either they were incorrect in their statement about the illumination overpowering the crosshairs or this sun isn’t the sun at all!


[edit on 22-6-2007 by Yandros]

That photo of the sun intensity has me quite interested. I've always been sitting on the fence when it came to the moon landing, but after that photo I think I fell off.

I hope the intensity photo is verified by others.

Awsome find!

The photos of the sun in the OP post assumes that the sun would be HUGE in size. Just look at the images, if the argument that the suns intensity varies (according to the image analysis), it would mean that the assumption is being made that the entire diameter in that photo is the actual size of the suns diameter. If that was the case, our sun would be around 6 times the existing diameter for it to appear that huge size in the images.

Its a halo effect, the sun's light being affected/refracted from the scant atmosphere of the moon or has interaction with the lens to cause the ring halo seen. We have similar halo effects seen on Earth of both the moon and the sun.





home.hiwaay.net...

[edit on 6/22/2007 by greatlakes]

Originally posted by greatlakes
Its a halo effect, the sun's light being affected/refracted from the scant atmosphere of the moon or has interaction with the lens to cause the ring halo seen. We have similar halo effects seen on Earth of both the moon and the sun.

Granted. But if you observe the photos from Apollo 12 closely you will notice there is a very clear halo already. How many do you propose there are supposed to be?

The moon is a hard vacuum, or so we are told. I doubt that any gas particles trapped by the slight gravity would have an overall effect on photographs taken.

Furthermore, this is a photograph of the sun taken using an analogue camera, on the moon where the sun’s rays are very intense with no UV filtering. The physics of such would be akin to burning film with a magnifying glass at midday. The film should be very overexposed, if not completely destroyed.

What is your take on that?

Just when I thought I could jump of the fence greatlakes, you show up and rain on my day.

Your explanation makes sense but i'm still wondering if the halo of the sun should appear to be as intense as the body of the sun itself?

Originally posted by Yandros
Granted. But if you observe the photos from Apollo 12 closely you will notice there is a very clear halo already. How many do you propose there are supposed to be?

Just look at my images posted, you can clearly see at least two halo rings around the source (moon or sun).

Originally posted by Yandros
The moon is a hard vacuum, or so we are told. I doubt that any gas particles trapped by the slight gravity would have an overall effect on photographs taken.

The moon DOES have a scant atmosphere, atoms and/or molecules caught in the low gravity of the moon. These particles are most likely transient, and new ones get stirred up by the solar particle interaction with the regolith of the moon. Lots of info on the lunar atmosphere, google is your friend (well mostly)


[edit on 6/22/2007 by greatlakes]

As pointed out by FreeSpeaker, the 'halo' inside is the same intensity as the center of the sun. How can this be?

Halos form when light from the sun or moon is refracted by ice crystals associated with thin, high-level clouds (like cirrostratus clouds). A 22 degree halo is a ring of light 22 degrees from the sun (or moon) and is the most common type of halo observed and is formed by hexagonal ice crystals with diameters less than 20.5 micrometers.

And you believe this happens on the moon?

Well if that's not evidence enough...


The earth has an albedo of around 35%. Why doesn't it have a halo when photographed from the moon?



[edit on 22-6-2007 by Yandros]

Originally posted by Yandros
Well if that's not evidence enough...
The earth has an albedo of around 35%. Why doesn't it have a halo when photographed from the moon?

Halos arent produced EVERY TIME yandros, there are a low occurrence phenomenom under the correct conditions. That may be why there are only 9 (possibly more that havent been dug up) or so images with the effect as soon on the Apollo images. Think of rainbows, similar effect, more likely however, and yet do we see rainbows forming EVERY TIME theres mist in the air on a sunny day?

[edit on 6/22/2007 by greatlakes]

The right conditions?

How many different sets of conditions do you propose there are on the day side of the moon? I was under the impression there would only one. That’s sort of the side effect of having little or no atmosphere; no weather.

You notice how the photograph of the earth is taken across the plane, as a photo of a sunset would be taken. That is to say; the photo is taken through the largest possible region of atmosphere, at a tangent to the moon. If any halo was going to form, surely it would form in that photo?

The halo in the Apollo 12 pics is purely an optical effect called a "lens flare". Could you provide information as to how you think the Sun should look and why?

Personally I see nothing wrong with the photos at all. The Sun is very bright (obviously) and it will create very strong lens flares, be it on Earth or the Moon.

Halos, also known as icebows, are optical phenomena that appear near or around the Sun or Moon, and sometimes near other strong light sources such as street lights. There are many types of optical halos, but they are mostly caused by ice crystals in cold cirrus clouds located high (5–10 km, or 3–6 miles) in the upper troposphere. The particular shape and orientation of the crystals is responsible for the type of halo observed. Light is reflected and refracted by the ice crystals and may split up into colors because of dispersion, similarly to the rainbow.

en.wikipedia.org...(optical_phenomenon)

I remain unconvinced that ice particles would be present in the moon's 'atmosphere.'

If not an optical phenomenon, lens flare, halo or other , what do think it is Yandros?

Originally posted by Yandros
How many different sets of conditions do you propose there are on the day side of the moon? I was under the impression there would only one. That’s sort of the side effect of having little or no atmosphere; no weather.

There are other conditions besides weather to consider when analyzing an image anomaly, whether its on Earth or on the moon, conditions such as:

Type of camera used

Type of film used

Time of day

Location of sun relative to photographer

Location of the Earth relative to the photographer

Angles of incidence between the moon, sun and Earth

Type of lens used

Many, many others etc etc




[edit on 6/22/2007 by greatlakes]

Originally posted by jra
The halo in the Apollo 12 pics is purely an optical effect called a "lens flare". Could you provide information as to how you think the Sun should look and why?

Personally I see nothing wrong with the photos at all. The Sun is very bright (obviously) and it will create very strong lens flares, be it on Earth or the Moon.

The above is lens flare. I agree lens flare is obviously present in the Apollo 12 photographs BUT...

The sun as photographed in space should be subject only to lens flare (not to atmospheric distortions as claimed by greatlakes.) Lens flare does not provide a perfect circular image. It will provide a chaotic star-like effect often with prisms of light spanning the verticals of the camera. If you review my second post in this thread you will see what I mean.

How do you propose the lens flare made the sun 10 times bigger than it should be, and perfectly circular for 10 pictures in a row? How do you propose that lens flare changes the intensity (as seen with high contrast low brightness filters) of the light source in the same way, in the same location, regardless of the angle?



[edit on 22-6-2007 by Yandros]

[edit on 22-6-2007 by Yandros]

It took a few hours to realise this was lens flare?

Originally posted by greatlakes

Type of camera used

Type of film used

Time of day

Location of sun relative to photographer

Location of the Earth relative to the photographer

Angles of incidence between the moon, sun and Earth

Type of lens used

Many, many others etc etc

Most of these are the same thing, you just quoted them twice.

Time of day and angle of sun are the same.
Earth has nothing to do with any of it. Not bright enough to qualify. Plus no refraction, or reflection, due to no observable atmosphere on the moon.

Lens, film speed and film type are not adequate explanations for a purely atmospheric distortion effects to be present on the moon.

Originally posted by All Seeing Guy
It took a few hours to realise this was lens flare?

Its not lens flare. There is lens flare in the photos, but lens flare is not responsible for size nor the change in intensity observed inside the sun itself. This is evident due to the size and change in intensity being consistent between photographs which were taken at different angles. Lens flare being purely due to internal noise in the camera, it is highly unlikely, if not impossible, that different angles could produce such a consistent effect.

Surely you all know what the sun looks like. It should be self apparent that the Apollo 12 sun is not the same sun you see out your window, or up in the sky.

How can you not realize this? Have none of you ever looked into a stadium light? Does this not look exactly like a stadium being lit at night? And absolutely nothing like the sun would look? Do not all of the Apollo missions look like this?

How is this halo effect possible if there is no atmosphere, and hence are no ice crystals?
Why is the intensity of the ‘sun’ consistently party to that ‘bulb’ effect as shown in the first post, regardless of the angle of the camera?
Why is the sun so big?
Why isn’t it brighter? So bright it overexposes the film?


[edit on 22-6-2007 by Yandros]

Does anyone else see this: the size of the sun in yandros' pictures is too large... also supporting yandros' theory. Relatively speaking, I assume that the diameter of the sun would look the same from the Earth or the Moon. The sun diameter as seen from the space station appears smaller. What say ye??
B.

Also something else that has always bothered me about the photo of the Earth from the moon: how can the moon cast a full penumbra on the Earth if it is so much smaller? Any merit to this observation?

image source: www.friends-partners.org...