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

You can I have ... U can push pull, You can change the ASA ISO... you can do alot. Alpha ... Images scanned in can still reveal alot more that what you via your monitor percieve on initial inspection. I see this more in film than digital.
[edit on 23-6-2007 by harry20007]

[edit on 23-6-2007 by harry20007]



Mod Edit: removed large unnecessary quote.

[edit on 23-6-2007 by UM_Gazz]

"A funny thing happened on the way to the moon"

www.veoh.com...

Contains footage relevant to this discussion of hoaxed moon landing images (and video). I really liked this one, and recommend watching it for sure.

PsykoOps,

And in your professional opinion this is what the sun would have looked like when they pointed the camera at it? I honestly don’t believe that is or could ever be the sun as observed from the moon.

And did you miss the converging shadows counterpoint? I think you did. Scroll back up and read my response to that.


[edit on 23-6-2007 by Yandros]

Changing any light level of the image changes the exposure... you are arguing about the very thing youre doing..

With film HOW TO CHANGE EXPOSURE and fil speed after shooting. If a high paying job and im not happy with exposures on my cam. Take it to a processor and say the magic words that any pro photographer pre digital would say.... PUSH PROCESS ! or 2 steps. Its a process of chemically of robbing Paul to pay Peter. Anyways Ive used this in the past. F/stops shutter speeds, varying flash or filters how long in developer for before applying fixative, burning more light onto paper than i should or shouldn't use do only one thing... manipulate the exposure . So stands to logic exposure can be manipulated at any point in the process. The only variable that controlled how much detail was the ASA or resolution of film.



Mod Edit: removed large unnecessary quote.

[edit on 24-6-2007 by UM_Gazz]

Originally posted by harry20007
Changing any light level of the image changes the exposure... you are arguing about the very thing youre doing..

What a foolish presumption.

Exposure is a purely physical and mechanical event. It is literally the exposure of the capturing surface to light, usually for a very short period.

Digital image manipulation has absolutely nothing to do with exposure, and even if brightness controls do mimic, to an extent, the control of exposure on a camera, they still remain completely different things.

To be ignorant of the world of digital image manipulation, while applying a physical analogue, is to act a fool. I do not profess to know much about analogue photography, although I know much of the basic physics. But you two seem to continually, and arrogantly, misapply your previous, analogue/physical, understanding to digital image manipulation. And its just plain incorrect.

That’s all I have to say on the matter.

This is the problem, David Bailey and us lower order photographers usually dont hold a PHD in maths or sciences. We just use the tools and make them work. We create the images that the public consumes. So when some Confused soul places an image up, making crappy theories in a field I work in I feel its my and others duty to set them straight.

So excuse me for feeling a little tired of your sad sad theories.

We went to the moon, Get OVER IT!



Mod Edit: removed large unnecessary quote.

[edit on 24-6-2007 by UM_Gazz]

Harry,

You have yet to debunk the perspective issue. Go back and review it.

And I am yet to see this magic filter which not only is designed for low light but also makes the sun 10 times bigger and 100 times less bright and inconsistent in intensity.

If you don’t want to debate, then leave. I did not ask you to come, and frankly your crude attitude is wearing on my patience.

If this is a daylight scene then all the shadows should be parallel. That being the case, they should follow only the green lines, which are lines of perspective.

Instead they follow the red lines (as drawn in by shrunkensimon) which indicates the light source is immediately present, unlike the sun which is 144000000000 meters away.

This, I believe, is conclusive proof of artificial lighting.

I apologise for my non scientific crewd language. Who am I to express (maybe forcefully I admit) my working knowledge of cross hairs and their effect on the future of humanity. Its just tireing seeing the gravel brought out day after day about the fact that we never went to the moon. Shadows, no stars, perspectives, and so many others. I must admit the perspective subject will be interesting .

Again I apologies over my tone , even though Ive read far worse making less sense

I have fire in my belly and want to face the truth. I want to sought out the wheat from the chaff and understand the world Im in . Sometimes being a psuedo -nterllectual just dosent cut the mustard for me when all our live depend on NASA coming clean. Governments working together for free energy and all that great stuff that we secretly want.

Originally posted by Yandros
Harry,

You have yet to debunk the perspective issue. Go back and review it.

And I am yet to see this magic filter which not only is designed for low light but also makes the sun 10 times bigger and 100 times less bright and inconsistent in intensity.

If you don’t want to debate, then leave. I did not ask you to come, and frankly your crude attitude is wearing on my patience.

[edit on 23-6-2007 by harry20007]

Well there is no atmosphere to dim the light, so it would look much brighter on the moon, not to mention the reflection.

Originally posted by Yandros

If this is a daylight scene then all the shadows should be parallel. That being the case, they should follow only the green lines, which are lines of perspective.

Instead they follow the red lines (as drawn in by shrunkensimon) which indicates the light source is immediately present, unlike the sun which is 144000000000 meters away.

This, I believe, is conclusive proof of artificial lighting.

What an earth would posses you to think that the vanishing point in the image is in the center? These are cropped images, you have no knowing what the original frame contained and where the vanishing point is.

Originally posted by PsykoOps

What an earth would posses you to think that the vanishing point in the image is in the center? These are cropped images, you have no knowing what the original frame contained and where the vanishing point is.

There are 5 by 5 crosshairs on each image. It is clear the image is not cropped because all the crosshairs are present.

Play another card…

Here’s a larger image where this problem is more evident:
(I'll be back on tomorrow to see how you went debunking this.)

Yeah, these aren't cropped. My bad, I was thinking about different images.

The horizon in this sot is not the actually the horizon but the edge of the crater or range. There is no reference point to work with. I agree the image has been cropped when processed (which can be don) so unfortunately. finding the vanishing point wold be purely guess work.
You can have multiple vanishing points due to lay of the land without the main horizon to refer from.

Originally posted by Yandros
Here’s a larger image where this problem is more evident:
(I'll be back on tomorrow to see how you went debunking this.)

[edit on 23-6-2007 by harry20007]

[edit on 23-6-2007 by harry20007]

Yandros, interesting post. I think your analysis of the images is correct and pretty damning. Unfortunately I do not know what effect filters would have on the ambient light levels to consider this a qualified opinion.
However, shrunkensimon observation appears incontrovertible evidence that these photos are fakes! As to why as someone asked, NASA would be so 'stupid' - well, one could argue that the bigger the lie, the more likely the cock-up...

Personally I believe that we got to the moon, just not when NASA says we did.

I see...
Can you supply AS number. I need to see the original There maybe a panaromaic. Vanishing points maynot be in center.

Far right circle Shadow dips into crater this will bend the shadow (natrually) therein causing shadow to change angle.


.

Originally posted by Yandros



If this is a daylight scene then all the shadows should be parallel. That being the case, they should follow only the green lines, which are lines of perspective.

Instead they follow the red lines (as drawn in by shrunkensimon) which indicates the light source is immediately present, unlike the sun which is 144000000000 meters away.

This, I believe, is conclusive proof of artificial lighting.

[edit on 23-6-2007 by harry20007]

[edit on 23-6-2007 by harry20007]

Ive stood a match stick on a white sheet of paper. I place light source in front of me and paper horizontally. The match stick stands at 90degrees. The shadow runs directly to me. ok . Now I tilt the sheet to the right gently, keeping the match-stick at 90 degrees to the paper, angle changes.

What am I saying. The shot with the sun causing the probs is shot just on the inside rim of the crater or hill. as you can see. The surface gently slopes from left to right , this changes the angles of shadows. The angles are only maintained if the object maintained its perpendicular angle to the sun while on hill. It would look a little artificial. The lay of the land can influence shadow directions. try it yourself and see.

The photographer was compensating for the incline. The viewers should too.
Isee nothing wrong with the image (so far)

Just a foot note. i believe we've all seen doctored images MASKING the true horizon on the moon, in certain shots. I feel this is done to hide the structures. Trying to guess the vanishing point using shadows of objects laying uniform to the totally uneven , sometimes sloping surface is unreliable.

On uneven sloping surfaces edge of hills , craters I would expect shadows to point at slightly different angles. if they didnt then I would think that something is wrong or its artificial.

I now build and design robots. The biggest problem is navigation. To date there is no vision system relied upon in rough terrain to tell where the vanishing point is. Not that its needed but its so unreliable. Shadows are deceptive., sometimes. you would need rods artificially inserted at the right angles to find it and not to forget that controversial stellar body... The SUN!



[edit on 23-6-2007 by harry20007]

Originally posted by harry20007
The photographer was compensating for the incline. The viewers should too.
Isee nothing wrong with the image (so far)

Here’s a rough panorama I have made for you:

Now you may freely observe that, irrespective of the individual perspective of the image, shadows all converge into the source of light! This is incorrect. Because if this is a daylight scene, and all the shadows are parallel, then the only way you could achieve this effect is by taking a very wide angle photograph of the entire scene as it is laid out in the panorama. Correct?

That is to say; If all that can cause the angle of the shadows is perspective, then this photo would only be achievable if it were one huge photo, rather than a lot of little photos.

This is sort of a hard thing to get your head around.

Consider this similar panorama:
www.gdargaud.net...

This had me stumped for a little while because it seems to support the moon image quite nicely. But then you have to remember that its just a trick of the photography that the shadows converge! That is purely perspective, they are actually parallel. In fact, as misleading as it may seem, every shadow in this panorama is going the same direction!

The difference here is that the photograph of the bunkers in this image was taken as a single photograph, with the disappearing point in the sun itself.

Whereas our moon panorama is a glue together of about 10 different photographs. This being the case the vanishing points should be unique for each photograph, and should not give the convergence effect observed.

Conclusion: Apollo 12 images are artificially lit.

Thanks for image makes things clearer.
Im using the image shadows cause thats waht was used to drive this discussion and was also used to draw the mistaken vanishing point.
The panoramic proves my point... the shadows are on an incline! Incline changes angle as i previously posted. try my simple experiment and watch shadow angle change on incline. Nothing strange here.

Your convergence lines dont meet on the natural horizon. The shot was taken slightly down the incline looking up. Its really not the best shot to judge shadow anomalies. We are not looking at the horizon but up out of an incline. Its very clear whats going on. but thanks for wide shot. I'll keep this in my collection.

The sun is much higher in the sky than observed here due to looking up out of incline.


[edit on 23-6-2007 by harry20007]

[edit on 23-6-2007 by harry20007]