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

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 06:33 AM
link   




posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by shrunkensimon

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


I'm a photographer so I think I know the basics. I haven't even seen any "NASA judgement" anywhere and I think everything about the photos is perfectly natural.



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
I'm a photographer so I think I know the basics. I haven't even seen any "NASA judgement" anywhere and I think everything about the photos is perfectly natural.


Ok so you would know that daylight photographs are consistently lit. And that the shadows should run parallel, or as subject to perspective…

You also know that halos do not form unless you are photographing in an atmosphere containing ice crystals. And the fact this sun has an obvious rainbow halo cannot be lens flare because lens flare is already evident in the little circles…

You also know that the sun should be burning the film right out of the camera, being unshielded from UV and completely polarized…

And that the intensity of a heavily overexposed patch of film (as with a standard photograph of the sun) should not change in intensity…

Do you not?



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 07:38 AM
link   
The shadows all point to the light source, where else would they point? Perspective is the key word indeed.

Rainbow halos can be easily formed by lens coating or UV filter.

The film is hardly unshielded. There are several lenses and filters before the film.

The film no, but the developed pictures yeah, they can change dramatically depending on the amount of exposure given to specific parts of the photo paper in the dark room.

For your crosshair details, see below.
www.clavius.org...



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 07:43 AM
link   
Hi first time here... I need to point towards filters on lenses (really supprised this hasnt been mentioned). I'm experienced in film and photography, Due to entensity of light (unbroken in space) various filters are applied to protect the viewer/film/ccd or whatever. There are 1000's of filter types assigned to different conditions/colour temp and Also effects. You will get dif sunbursts on dif angles. This is a total red herring. Types of lens flare will not point to object location or ufo . Bye the way im a semi skeptic. I have studied the moon a great deal (hi-lo res) and agree there are structures. I just feel the that lens flare comes with the territory of optics in any lighting condition. you cant define its location.

Hal

[edit on 23-6-2007 by harry20007]



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 07:49 AM
link   
[edit on 23-6-2007 by harry20007]



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yandros


Just to deal with the right image lolol. OK, pretty basic, you turned down the contrast to see image of the sun... if not it would be white, soooo ? the cross hairs appear. Now whack up the image to true exposure (being that the sun is pretty bright) and your cross hairs will vanish, due to light compensation and stuff.

The image on the right is not high contrast as stated in image, the left images are high contrast. Sometimes one has to look at the actual word to understand what it really means. HIGH_ Contrast!

Cross hairs are Another Red herring lol:

There are structures Look in Picard crater (dome & tower ) look at early Russian images of the moon.

Learn basic photography and you'll understand the basics of how light reacts on film! Most of us (photographers) cant believe how easy it is to wipe away these pipe dreams.

Believe me im no fan of NASA as I know there will be a very public Lynching soon, NASA holding back on images of structures. The blattent blocking-out/fuzzing/ deletion/moving of craters really gets my goat. Not shadows and light angles lol .


[edit on 23-6-2007 by harry20007]



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by harry20007
Just to deal with the right image lolol. OK, pretty basic, you turned down the contrast (not high contrast as stated in image, the left images that are black and white are high contrast) to see image of the sun... if not it would be white, soooo ? the cross hairs appear. Now whack up the image to true exposure (being that the sun is pretty bright) and your cross hairs will vanish, due to light compensation and stuff.



Wrong wrong wrong. I turned up the contrast to give better separation between slight variations in colour. I turned down the brightness so that you could see these variations.

Now if you look at the left side there. Go find those images. Do whatever you please with them, you will not find the crosshair. It is not grayed out, it is simply gone.




Learn basic photography and you'll understand the basics of how light reacts on film! Most of us (photographers) cant believe how easy it is to wipe away these pipe dreams.


So get out your photo editing software and turn up the contrast on some of these images! You will find very quickly that they are not uniformly lit and hence cannot be lit by the sun.

Heres one I prepared earlier:


Go ahead and tell me that’s actually an outdoor scene, and its just the lens or some special filter making it look like its lit by a floodlight. Because I won't believe you. It is self apparent, as are all the photographs.



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 08:32 AM
link   
And by UV filter I meant atmosphere. On earth we have an ozone layer which filters out the hard UV and blue violet wavelengths from the sunlight. If you level an ordinary camera at such light you'll burn a hole through the back of it. I seriously doubt these cameras were equipped with special UV filters, as they were not designed to be pointed into the sun. Which begs the question: why are they being pointed into the sun?



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 08:33 AM
link   
that would seem to be a composite image. I agree
www.friends-partners.org...

I thank God one member mentioned that halos are from ICE PARTICLES in the atmosphere...one voice of reason, kudos to you.

I do believe we went, but not the way they say.



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yandros

Originally posted by PsykoOps
I'm a photographer so I think I know the basics. I haven't even seen any "NASA judgement" anywhere and I think everything about the photos is perfectly natural.


Ok so you would know that daylight photographs are consistently lit. And that the shadows should run parallel, or as subject to perspective…

You also know that halos do not form unless you are photographing in an atmosphere containing ice crystals. And the fact this sun has an obvious rainbow halo cannot be lens flare because lens flare is already evident in the little circles…

You also know that the sun should be burning the film right out of the camera, being unshielded from UV and completely polarized…

And that the intensity of a heavily overexposed patch of film (as with a standard photograph of the sun) should not change in intensity…

Do you not?

Ever heard of Filters? Go look at filters used for taking FILM not digital shots of the sun. Filters can creat halos too.



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglelord
I thank God one member mentioned that halos are from ICE PARTICLES in the atmosphere...one voice of reason, kudos to you.


Lol that would be me. I'm fighting off these guys almost single handed here.

Now... getting back to PsykoOps's comments.


The shadows all point to the light source, where else would they point? Perspective is the key word indeed.


I hope you realize that the sun is 144000000000 meters away. Yes the shadows should converge to the light source, but the light source isn’t where you think it is pal.

To put this in easy to understand terms. The shadows should converge into the center point of the horizon, not the light source. This is because the light source is so distant that the shadows are actually parallel. And that being the case, they should only be subject to the perspective of the shot, which would have them directed to the middle of the horizon / furthest observable point directly ahead.

I think you just debunked yourself rather well. Hehe.



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 08:43 AM
link   
This is an area that I need clarified. What are you trying to say? That we never went there or??? not sure what your trying to proove. (Clarify for me as so i can keep on the right train of thought)

Not many people still hand process film and print their own pics but if you did or do, you will know how sometimes even though in high contrast with light levels left alone, the bright object appears clear, as you alpha/contrast down, in whatever combination, you can see other objects that were washed out.

I'm not sure if ive made myself clear ... im trying to say that what you see as clear and white dosent mean it is. In some images its surprising whats still there even if it appears clear!




[edit on 23-6-2007 by harry20007]

[edit on 23-6-2007 by harry20007]



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by harry20007
Ever heard of Filters? Go look at filters used for taking FILM not digital shots of the sun. Filters can creat halos too.


Ok, let me test the waters here.

The albedo of the moon is approximately 10 - 15%. That is a surface with the reflective capability of bitumen on earth. Now when you design your camera, any filters you put on it are going to be mainly for getting the correct shot in relatively low light, with as little flare/glare as possible. Yes?

The filters used should not produce artifacts, they should be as accurate as possible and designed for low light. We note the obvious lens flare in the photographs taken of the ‘sun’ but this still does not explain the halo.

As pointed out earlier, the photo of the earth which is presumably taken by the same camera, does not give any sort of flare or halo even though it is 35% the brightness of the sun.

I think it is a long shot and far cry to be blaming all observed problems with the Apollo 12 sun on the filter when so little attention was given to the filters that came with the cameras to begin with. I suspect the filters were rather limited and probably consisted of little more than a polarizing filter.

During Apollo 15 they apparently could not attach the polarizing filter due to ‘dust in the fitting.’

If someone has more information on the filters that were shipped with the Hasselblad 500 EL cameras please post it.


[edit on 23-6-2007 by Yandros]



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yandros

Originally posted by harry20007
Just to deal with the right image lolol. OK, pretty basic, you turned down the contrast (not high contrast as stated in image, the left images that are black and white are high contrast) to see image of the sun... if not it would be white, soooo ? the cross hairs appear. Now whack up the image to true exposure (being that the sun is pretty bright) and your cross hairs will vanish, due to light compensation and stuff.



Wrong wrong wrong. I turned up the contrast to give better separation between slight variations in colour. I turned down the brightness so that you could see these variations.

Now if you look at the left side there. Go find those images. Do whatever you please with them, you will not find the crosshair. It is not grayed out, it is simply gone.




Learn basic photography and you'll understand the basics of how light reacts on film! Most of us (photographers) cant believe how easy it is to wipe away these pipe dreams.


So get out your photo editing software and turn up the contrast on some of these images! You will find very quickly that they are not uniformly lit and hence cannot be lit by the sun.

Heres one I prepared earlier:


Go ahead and tell me that’s actually an outdoor scene, and its just the lens or some special filter making it look like its lit by a floodlight. Because I won't believe you. It is self apparent, as are all the photographs.

Here we see the problem ... In your right image you state, high contrast and nothing else. But you now confirm that you also reduced the brightness... well then it aint high contrast anymore!

You may used that facility abit but you also altered the exposure!

Thats what i was saying before, you need to understand what you actually did. If you had just high contrasted, as stated in right image . you would not have that image on the right. This isnt just symanics...



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

Originally posted by harry20007
This is an area that I need clarified. What are you trying to say? That we never went there or??? not sure what your trying to proove.


Well to begin with, you clearly do not understand what contrast is, so I find it hard to believe you are any sort of authority on the subject of photography.

Second; I am only trying to show you that these images are clearly not filmed on the moon and not filmed in daylight. You must not attach implications to the fact. Such an act will only work to cloud your judgment. In the process of seeking truth, one must concentrate on the evidence, not on the possible conclusions.

To assume, hypothesize, conclude and dismiss is to fool yourself entirely.



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Just to come in on this... Remeber the word light source. That does not only imply the sun. The moons reflective surface, rocks, space suits, therein causing other objects to give off faint shadows in different directions.


Mod Edit: Removed large unnecessary quote.



[edit on 23-6-2007 by UM_Gazz]



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Ive spent most my working life working with light . I understand it, use it to make a living. Can you not understand how/contrast/alpha work? Your stating cause there are no cross hairs to be seen in HAND printed prints with various burning times to highten the contrast, we didnt go to the moon? COME ON! Im trying to tell you how these images are created! Ive stated earlier i believe NASA has something to hide but its not in the cross hairs.

You'll need a better arguement ... Im open to be persuaded.

[edit on 23-6-2007 by harry20007]



Mod Edit: Removed large unnecessary quote.



[edit on 23-6-2007 by UM_Gazz]



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by harry20007
You may used that facility abit but you also altered the exposure!


How does one 'alter the exposure' after the photograph is taken. You clearly understand very little about digital image manipulation.

Now that photograph that is posted only has the contrast modified. There is no brightness modification present.

Let me explain to you how digital image manipulation works.

Images on the computer are made up of millions of little squares called 'pixels'. Each pixel typically is assigned 3 bytes of data. These three bytes are the three channels of Red Green and Blue. Each channel has an intensity ranging from 0 - 255.

When I change the brightness of an image in a digital image manipulation software program the program simply goes through each one of these pixels and adjusts the RGB values based on the fair intensity calculation (that is the calculation which turns colour to black and white) to give a uniform lowering in overall brightness. This has absolutely nothing to do with exposure, which cannot be changed after the photograph has been taken, unless the film is exposed accidentally, or rerun somehow.

When I modify the contrast of an image in a digital image manipulation software program, the program will reduce the number of colours allowed to be on screen and round any colours that do not fit into this set down. That is to say, the more I increase contrast the more each blue will begin to look the same shade of blue. Same for white, green and red. It is setting a definite palette for the image and forcing the pixels into the palette, so the image is now made up of colours which are mathematical round downs of their originals.

So when I want to find slight variations in colour I can do the following: turn up the contrast to make the number of possible colours in the image very few, then change the brightness setting, which has the effect of moving the colour margins back and forth so different regions of colour fall into different margins. This is because the contrast is calculated from the original image, after the brightness is calculated.

The process is perhaps a tad hard to understand in its internal workings, but it is very intuitive.

The main point I want to make here is what is done to one pixel, is done to all others. The images produced are still uniformly accurate representations of the pixels from the original image, just with a filter or modifier on them. There has been no 'drawing onto' the image to inconsistently change some areas and not others.



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Filters are need for high and low lighting conditions. Different temperatures Color and infrared. Hasslablad were SLR's so the mirror in the camera would have an optical coating. The lenses (Carl Zeiss I may br wrong) Are the finest heat treated polished ,COTED lenses ever made. There are patents and hidden stuff on the specs. Its a wonder there werent more halos. The filters f/stops aperture sizes, filter are given in some cases. Little things like A strong red filter is used for Black and white shots for high contrast. People forget the amount of tech involved to take a film shot! Film reacts strangely sometimes. When you have a powerful heat source/ light source light in a vacuum acting on film within a monochrome landscape you aint going to get normal straight forward shadows always. Light reflects and illuminates another surface.


Mod Edit: Removed large unnecessary quote.

[edit on 23-6-2007 by UM_Gazz]





top topics
 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join