Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
jra

posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yandros
The sun as photographed in space should be subject only to lens flare (not to atmospheric distortions as claimed by greatlakes.)


This is true and it is only a lens flare.


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.


But the circular ring effect is apart of the lens flare, if that's what you were referring to. Lens flares can change in appearance depending on the kind of lens used. Different sizes and shapes of lenses make different kinds of lens flares.


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?


Again it depends on the lens, A wide angle lens will make the Sun look small, a telephoto will make it look large. Exposure can also play a role as well. The Shutter speed for those Apollo photos was set for exposing the reflected light off the surface, not for the Sun itself, so it's going to be greatly over exposed, thus blown out and glowing, making it look larger.




posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by bprintz1
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...


Hmm I think you are assuming that the moon is casting the shadow on the earth here? (Correct me if I misinterpreted.)

That’s supposed to be the day/night divider you are observing on the earth in that photo. The sun is high overhead.



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra
The Shutter speed for those Apollo photos was set for exposing the reflected light off the surface, not for the Sun itself, so it's going to be greatly over exposed, thus blown out and glowing, making it look larger.


Right, it SHOULD be heavily overexposed. But we see variation in the intensity of the 'whiteness' from the light source. An overexposure would give pure white, or even some other colour. Conclusion: these photos are not overexposed.

Furthermore, if you return to my second post in this thread. You will find my update where I have a cropped version of one of the images, with contrast and brightness adjusted. You will note in this image that a black crosshair is clearly visible in spite of it being directly in front of the sun. If this film were overexposed that crosshair would be completely invisible due to the bleeding effect overexposure has. (And that effect of the crosshairs being lost because of highly illuminated backdrops is well documented by debunkers of the moon hoax hypotheses.)



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 01:26 AM
link   
Take for example, this photo of the sun from earth. Which is both party to lens flare and moderate overexposure.




Now… when we do the similar contrast and brightness adjustments heres what we get:



And I did try out some different combinations. There is simply no variation inside the bright part of the sun in that photo. You may try this with any photo of the sun taken with a regular analogue camera, and you will likely always get the same result.

Over exposure means the film is unable to provide detail in that region because the surface of the film has been completely chemically reacted due to a flood of light. So it is logical that if the Apollo 12 sun is heavily over exposed in those photos then there should be no variation within the brightness of the sun. We see variation therefore it is doubtful that they are heavily over exposed.



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 02:00 AM
link   
You can allways ask NASA what equipment was used for those sun pictures. I dont think they would be that stupid to use a stadium light and then make pictures of them.



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 02:14 AM
link   

The camera equipment carried by Apollo 12 consisted of one 70-millimeter Hasselblad EL camera, two Hasselblad data cameras, two 16-millimeter Maurer data acquisition cameras, one 35-millimeter lunar surface close-up stereoscopic camera, and a four-camera, multispectral S-158 experiment.

More info here: www.lpi.usra.edu...

I don’t know much about cameras, but a 70 mm lens isn't a trick lens by any leap of the imagination. It should give quite accurate photographs. This follows logically; there wouldn’t be crosshairs on the photographs if they weren’t intended to be scientifically accurate. Although you need stereo images of the same target to work out distances using the crosshairs.



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 03:37 AM
link   
Hmm I think you are assuming that the moon is casting the shadow on the earth here? (Correct me if I misinterpreted.)

That’s supposed to be the day/night divider you are observing on the earth in that photo. The sun is high overhead.


Of course. Thanks yandros. [Me? Fuzzy brained?]


[edit on 23-6-2007 by bprintz1]

[edit on 23-6-2007 by bprintz1]

[edit on 23-6-2007 by bprintz1]

[edit on 23-6-2007 by bprintz1]



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 05:02 AM
link   
i might sound a bit silly here, but if the light shown is 10 times larger than the sun, then how can it be a stadium light?



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 05:26 AM
link   
If you take a photograph like those where the light is measured from the ground any light source will overexpose badly. About the ring and the spot in the middle, that small spot is probably the actual sun, and the rest of the ring is overexposure compined with lensflare. Nothing unusual about these pictures.

[Edit] Of course these pictures are overexposed, and badly, if they weren't you wouldn't be able to see the ground at all.
And when it comes to those examples you post of picture of a sun taken on earth, first of all it's taken on earth (athmosphere). Secondly the apollo pictures were taken with a medium format film camera, those examples are digital from kodak DC290 Zoom Digital Camera. Third you have to take into account the lens + any filters that might've been used at moon.

[edit on 23/6/2007 by PsykoOps]

[edit on 23/6/2007 by PsykoOps]



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 05:32 AM
link   
I think you are correct, that the Sun is fake. But my method of testing is alot simpler. Some basic physics of shadows.

Look at pictures 2 and 4.

The shadows should all be parallel, but if you look at the shadows from rocks (craters are misleading), you will find that they are not parallel... not even close!

The Sun in those pictures is fake, and is definatly not thousands of miles away! If it was, then the shadows would be completely parallel. The shadows are not aligned, and therefore the light source (sun) is alot closer than it should be (major understatement).





I can't believe NASA would be so stupid.. there is a distinct lack of rocks.. the horizon doesn't look right (it just drops off)..the shadows are wrong..

Reminds me of "truth in plane site", that they do it to show off, and rub it in our face, because most people will just trust them anyway.



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 05:41 AM
link   
Probably just wide angle disortion, if I even understand what you're getting at. The shadows are all normal to me.



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
[Edit] Of course these pictures are overexposed, and badly, if they weren't you wouldn't be able to see the ground at all.


You totally miss the point in my second post, which is right after the first post in this topic. Go back and check again. How can it be overexposed when the crosshair is still visible? You must recall that it came up that some items were found to be in front of the crosshairs. This was ruled out as not unordinary by claiming the illumination of the object caused a bleeding effect.

Now I ask you again: How can they have pointed the camera directly at the sun and taken a photograph and still have the little black crosshairs, which are built into the camera, show up on the film?



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 05:51 AM
link   
Did you actually examine the photos i posted???!

The shadows are not normal, not even close. I could highlight many more shadows which clearly indicate where the light source is coming from, and how close it really is.

The photos don't even look real for christ sake. Look at the horizon. As with all of their moon landing photos, there is nothing in the distance.. it just drops off after about 100m.

The photos are DEFINATLY fake. Learn some basics, then you can analyse the photos yourself, instead of trusting NASAs judgement.



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
The shadows should all be parallel, but if you look at the shadows from rocks (craters are misleading), you will find that they are not parallel... not even close!


Yeah, it is obviously a flood light. But I did not try to argue this (converging shadow) point because it is always shot down with some variation on the perspective argument. There’s no real way to debunk the perspective argument. Except in that one case (I’ll see if I can dig up the photo) where the shadows are at literally converging at 90 degrees (which is impossible with the lens they were using.)

But the nature of the lighting is evident when you turn up the contrast a little on any given image, from any given Apollo mission, of almost any given scene. The subject of the photo is always illuminated and then the light intensity quickly falls off as you move toward the edge of the photo.

They all look and feel like they are filmed at night in a stadium, because they were. These are not daylight scenes, this much is obvious. Presenting evidence people will accept is another thing entirely however.

These photographs are most likely fake and I am yet to see real daylight scene photographs from the surface of the moon.



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by owzitgarn
i might sound a bit silly here, but if the light shown is 10 times larger than the sun, then how can it be a stadium light?


10 times larger than the sun SHOULD APPEAR... from the surface of the moon. Sorry if that was misleading.



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 06:00 AM
link   
I have to agree, there is something not right with these photos.

It's all well and good debating a single picture and passing the results off as lense flare, but then as pointed out earlier, 10 pictures in a row with the same consistent effect?



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 06:02 AM
link   
shrunkensimon,

Looking at your diagrams more closely I see exactly what you are getting at. This cannot be perspective because it lines up exactly with the light source. That is quite a find of itself.

Thank you for contributing this.



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yandros

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
The shadows should all be parallel, but if you look at the shadows from rocks (craters are misleading), you will find that they are not parallel... not even close!


Yeah, it is obviously a flood light. But I did not try to argue this (converging shadow) point because it is always shot down with some variation on the perspective argument. There’s no real way to debunk the perspective argument. Except in that one case (I’ll see if I can dig up the photo) where the shadows are at literally converging at 90 degrees (which is impossible with the lens they were using.)


Fair enough.

But surely the perspective argument is undone by the fact that the light source in those photos is perfectly circle, with no distortions as it would surely have if it were stretched to a larger frame?? I am no expert in photo analysis, i can barely grasp what the OP is about, but the shadows is all i need to see really.. and the horizon thing. The photos just scream fake, even if i can't prove it.



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by not_fazed
I have to agree, there is something not right with these photos.

It's all well and good debating a single picture and passing the results off as lense flare, but then as pointed out earlier, 10 pictures in a row with the same consistent effect?


Actually there are about 30 to 50 altogether. I was going over the Apollo archive site looking for photos of the 'sun' from any mission. There are another 5 - 10 from Apollo 12, and all the other missions have their own sets too. Its always the same light, although Apollo 17's looks brighter. And yes you can always do the same intensity analysis to see the light bulb in the middle.



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yandros
Looking at your diagrams more closely I see exactly what you are getting at. This cannot be perspective because it lines up exactly with the light source. That is quite a find of itself.

Thank you for contributing this.


Your welcome
Sorry to distract from your original analysis. I get at what your saying aswell; I thought the Sun looked wrong before i even read your writings.. everything about the photos looks wrong lol.

I just had to post the shadow thing, because its something everyone can verify and do themselves, which at the end of teh day is the most important thing (waking people up).





new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join