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

i can't see nothing strange in that pic

look, isnt in the moon but is almost the same effect:
img526.imageshack.us...

[edit on 23-6-2007 by kaoru]

It boggles the mind how moronic people can be.

The sun is viewed out of the atmopshere and thus pure white. The film overexposed and thus it is massive. The odd shapes and colors are recognized lens flare.

No Harry, you are wrong. The incline turns into a decline in the rightmost side and there is some level ground there, yet the shadows are still angled toward the sun.


Does no one else get this!?

The shadows should be parallel. How do you all fail to understand this?

Lets lay this out clearly for those of you who fail to understand.

LARGE Image Link
View the above panorama.

Now observe that across all the images that make up the panorama the angle of the shadows converge into the light source.

If this were filmed in daylight this would not be the case.

Shadows of a daylight scene should be parallel because the sun's rays come in polarized.

Shadow convergence is normally explained by perspective.

The shadow convergence observed in this panorama cannot be explained by perspective, because the vanishing point is DIFFERENT for every separate photo which makes up the panorama.

Do you understand now?


Mod Edit: Converted super large image to link.

[edit on 24-6-2007 by UM_Gazz]

I cant agree with you as I said There is an incline or for aguements sake decline. Get the white paper put your pencil on it. Have the light source in front of you change the horizontal angle of paper left or right keep the pencil at right angles to the paper. Ive prooved not all shadows need to be parallel. In a simple a4 sheet angles have changed. Thats my point. the shadows will be different . They have to be has the surface angle changes. Plus the vanishing point cannot be calculated in this image due to the shot not looking at the geographical horizon. This is shot looking slighly up and out. I really cant see how you can leap from slight angled shadows to reason that this is a spot light????!!!! cant see your logic. Each shot wold be slightly different. Plus your drawing convergence lines are inaccurate, left red circle line does not follow shadow. these little mistakes make a huge difference on your vanishing point. Really this a red herring. lol sorry

Explain how I can get different angled shadows from one light source... ? Ive proved it you can carry out my simple experiment and proove me wrong. you're strangely quite on my fundamental point.
A great Renaissance painter (massacio) invented perspective. he created it to give the illusion of depth , with his frescoes (paintings using eggs base). The rules of depth perspective cannot be used with shadows. You drew your convergence lines using this in your earlier posts . One can have more than one vanishing point in an image. In controlled completely flat environments you can get the vanishing point. not looking up sl;ighly relying on shadows. You'll have to come to terms with this then you'll see that convergence points only work FROM SHADOWS on a flat surface .



[edit on 23-6-2007 by harry20007]

I think a far more interesting question is why some people still believe the Moon landings were faked. My 2c theory is that people still have trouble dealing with the enormity of the achievement. It is no coincidence that the residents of backward nations such as the rural areas of southern Europe, Arabia, and Africa don't believe it ever happened.

Does anyone seriously believe that of the countless thousands involved in the program, not to mention all the lunar astronauts, not one of them has come forward to admit that it was all a huge government conspiracy.

It simply beggars the imagination to believe that such a huge conspiracy could be so totally successful.

I only hope that when we finally have an independant photo of Armstrong's boot print on the Moon's surface, the Moon conspiracy theorists will finally devote themselves to more meaningful endeavors.

Now thats a question that still leaves me stunned. Why? With independant images shot by universities around the world. Ham radio enthusiasts listened in. Its amazing that these theories still do the rounds. the important question is why JPL is blacking out blurring location on the moon. Why are there 3 patents given to US citizens for mining on the moon?
Well said. Retseh.

Originally posted by Retseh
I think a far more interesting question is why some people still believe the Moon landings were faked. My 2c theory is that people still have trouble dealing with the enormity of the achievement. It is no coincidence that the residents of backward nations such as the rural areas of southern Europe, Arabia, and Africa don't believe it ever happened.

Does anyone seriously believe that of the countless thousands involved in the program, not to mention all the lunar astronauts, not one of them has come forward to admit that it was all a huge government conspiracy.

It simply beggars the imagination to believe that such a huge conspiracy could be so totally successful.

I only hope that when we finally have an independant photo of Armstrong's boot print on the Moon's surface, the Moon conspiracy theorists will finally devote themselves to more meaningful endeavors.

[edit on 23-6-2007 by harry20007]

Originally posted by Retseh
I think a far more interesting question is why some people still believe the Moon landings were faked. My 2c theory is that people still have trouble dealing with the enormity of the achievement. It is no coincidence that the residents of backward nations such as the rural areas of southern Europe, Arabia, and Africa don't believe it ever happened.

Does anyone seriously believe that of the countless thousands involved in the program, not to mention all the lunar astronauts, not one of them has come forward to admit that it was all a huge government conspiracy.

It simply beggars the imagination to believe that such a huge conspiracy could be so totally successful.

I only hope that when we finally have an independant photo of Armstrong's boot print on the Moon's surface, the Moon conspiracy theorists will finally devote themselves to more meaningful endeavors.

If you can sell WTC7 to the world everything is possible......

Yandros, i think you are very right.

Why ? because science doesn't lie.

By the way, current Debt of the USA : $8,802,834,851,579.79 and rising.

That's a fact for sure.

Do i like that ? No..........and i don't like the moon-fakery either.....but after 9-11, I think the moon-landing are very fake also.

I am clearly wasting my time here.

You still fail to explain the unnatural shadow convergence. I have shown you why this cannot be the sun, and explained it to you at length.

Yet you choose to back away, down the avenue of uneven ground. This is your choice, be a fool, believe these photographs are actually taken on the moon.

It is completely evident to anyone with a lick of intelligence that these are completely hoaxed photographs. Uneven lighting, artificial convergence of shadows, camera pointed right at the sun and yet the cross hair still comes up? The intensity of the sun is uneven... The sun is far too large. The sun has a halo.

I'll not waste my time anymore with you. I think my point is clear enough and stands on its own.

For the general public to understand whats going on we have really got to thrash out the truth. Now 911, jesus ATS forums did a wonderful job. I believe this to be an obvious cover up.

Im asking and will ask again how can one judge from misguided lines (sometimes inaccurate) from shadows to spot lights and we never went there? Where is the science? How the hell do expect the public to take this seriously when so called science is thrown around. This is common sense involved on this tiny part of a bigger problem and its wrong! people can draw as many lines as they want in photoshop but Ive got the heart of this problem in one simple experiment Ive said many times. This will prove the point that shadows dont always run parallel. you can have more than one vanishing point. This takes out another of those sure to be shot down theories. Just like the dissapearing cross hairs and so many others.

Somebody do the experiment and tell me im wrong please im open to admitting im wrong if proven.

Shadow convergence, is that your vanishing point? What have I been saying all along? You have not answered my simple experiment. Dose that not prove my point. Im sure you've tried it, just a pencil and paper and one light source? cant you admit this point im saying. Im saying shadows can be at different angle, which means different convergence points in the same shot. I think im clear. Dont run away do the tes and get back to me. Tell me im wrong. And we shall agree to disagree even though Im right lolol. Great discussion by the way, getting grief from the girl friend not giving here attention so i'll bow out for today. excuse me if Ive been rude or contra-sending in anyway. this happens when I hold the truth in one hand I do agree also NASA is Hiding something its just not what you think it is.

CheoW

Originally posted by Yandros
I am clearly wasting my time here.

You still fail to explain the unnatural shadow convergence. I have shown you why this cannot be the sun, and explained it to you at length.

Yet you choose to back away, down the avenue of uneven ground. This is your choice, be a fool, believe these photographs are actually taken on the moon.

It is completely evident to anyone with a lick of intelligence that these are completely hoaxed photographs. Uneven lighting, artificial convergence of shadows, camera pointed right at the sun and yet the cross hair still comes up? The intensity of the sun is uneven... The sun is far too large. The sun has a halo.

I'll not waste my time anymore with you. I think my point is clear enough and stands on its own.

[edit on 23-6-2007 by harry20007]

Originally posted by webstra
If you can sell WTC7 to the world everything is possible......
Yandros, i think you are very right.
Why ? because science doesn't lie.

Thank you,
Someone with some common sense.

To all you people out there who think this was all impossible to fake:
Consider this. Do everything as planned, except don't send people. All that involves is sending a craft, bouncing the signal back off the craft, or relaying it, or having it play back on tape.

The NASA technology was simply inadequate to put people on the moon; but that was not the reason I began researching this. The anomalies are the foremost of my concerns. Perhaps many of you don't mind taking a leap of faith; but I think very poorly of faith indeed. I like things to be consistent, and properly explained.

Anyone who trusts their own judgment will not cast judgment on others so quickly and without considerable forethought. It is only the fool who swoops in for the attack.

People say what they have to say, because they feel that it is important. You all must realize this and strive to be objective in your reasoning.

Originally posted by harry20007
This will prove the point that shadows dont always run parallel. you can have more than one vanishing point.....

it's too consequent pointing to the same point......and it's not far away.

Originally posted by Yandros

It is completely evident to anyone with a lick of intelligence that these are completely hoaxed photographs. Uneven lighting, artificial convergence of shadows, camera pointed right at the sun and yet the cross hair still comes up? The intensity of the sun is uneven... The sun is far too large. The sun has a halo.

Apparently you choose completely to ignore our debunks of those topics.

1) Uneven lighting can be done in development to bring out details or just for making the pictures look good. Some pictures have bright spot light like areas, which isn't surprising since there is plenty of reflective areas around.

2) Harry explained the shadows quite well.

3) Crosshair comes up cause it comes up in every picture where it is on top of white objects or bright light if you check the original pictures.

4) The sun itself is a small spot in the middle of that white circle. The rest is burned out and caused by lenses and filters. Not surprising if it's uneven. That whole white circle isn't the sun, it's not too large, it's just overexposed.

5) The lenses and filters cause halos when pointed directly into a bright light source.

[edit on 23/6/2007 by PsykoOps]

Originally posted by harry20007
Shadow convergance, is that your vanishing point? What have I been saying all along? You have not answered my simple experiment. Dose that not prove my point. Im sure youve tried it, just a pencil and paper and one light source?

Your paper and your pencil are foolish notions. The shadows from the sun should remain parallel unless the camera is pointing into the sun or away from the sun. Even with allowing for landscape curvature it is evident there is a consistent convergence across all images of the panorama into the light source. Which should not be the case.

But again; I waste my time with you. If it is not this, then it will be something else. The simple fact of the matter is you cannot bring yourself to accept that these images are fakes.

I don't trust the government, nor am I going to pretend to be an expert on photography, but I have a quick pair of questions:

1. How would the U.S. government benefit from faking the Apolo project?

and

2. How do supporters of this conspiracy theory explain the public takeoffs of the Apolo spacecraft?

I've also yet to hear a complete and cohesive theory that support the moon landing(s) being faked.

Surely this has to be established before jumping to conclusions, rather than jumping on perceived anomalies?

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.

You believe wrong.

The closer the lightsource is, the more "spread out" the shadows will appear. Look at these 3D renderings:



On the left side render the lightsource is very distant. On the right side the lightsource is close. See how the shadow angle is "narrower" on the render with a very distant light?

Your photo analysis actually shows the lightsource is *further* away than what you believe it should be.

And, yes, the lightsource in both renderings has the same visual "altitude".

I think its due to the fact that a lens is involved.Our eyes have no glass between what we see and so our perception is different when we see something with the blind eye compared to a picture using a glass lens.Its just a prism effect.What else do you propose it could be? Someone changed the big lightbulb in the sky and is using an environment safe bulb? I think you are over thinking this and that you are trying to form a theory around the picture rather than allow the picture to fit the facts.Its the sun.This isnt a picture taken by great grandads kodak, its a modern camera with much more highly developed film and imaging technics.Its a lot of kool pictures,but just pictures.I dont think the sun is going to go supernova or that we have to worry about someone kidnapping it.
peace

Great Job : IAttackPeople.
Another nail in that withering coffin . Thats great!!! Now the distance can be confirmed.

I come to a point where i think the moon landing were a hoax but frankly i dont care
who gives a #?? whoo hoo! billions spent on....rocks?
Ok..lets get back to L.A. hospital staff leaving people out to die. then you guys can worry about some damn rocks