Sun from NASA - with lightbulb :)

Recently, NASA got the funny mood, I suppose. These hi-res scans are dangerous No more need to play with fake colors or try extend the picture information depth to get it's secret. Now a simple Photoshop curves move (input 249, output 0) reveal the nature of the... Sun? LOL



source (beware, 12MB jpeg):
www.lpi.usra.edu...


Of course, with some tweaking in the curves, a nicer picture is possible:



...but the simple fact is, that these pictures show studio lights with lightbulbs inside. Of couse I'm not first who discovered it... there were many before me, jut look:

www.youtube.com...
or
www.youtube.com...


( www.lpi.usra.edu... )


( www.lpi.usra.edu... )

Do Sun contain lughtbulbs?!









Real verzus fake...




All in all, NASA should either come clean and admit it, finally, or GTFO because this is not funny anymore ... or is is very funny, depending witch way you look at it

[edit on 25/6/2009 by trodas]

[edit on 25/6/2009 by trodas]

Sorry:. This person took a digital image scanned from a nasa film camera transparency and twisted it.How many steps of reproduction are between his analysis of that light source and the actual light source on the surface of the moon??
light enters hasselblad lens and is recorded on transparency film, film is processed, image is scanned for the web,. you could very well be seeing the light from the scanner passing through the bright spot in the transparency.

You can not twist an image inphotoshop and pullout more detail than recorded by the camera/scanner system that recorded it. You are not analyzing A scene but a digital representation with information limited to the capability of the recording devices.You could be seeing the color response of the original camera chip, in complete saturation, you could be seeing the color response of your photoshop program.you could be seeing lens chromatic aberration artifacts andreflections in the original camera lens, you most certainly are not looking outa clean window and analyzing the light output of the actual sun in the image.(its the cameras'/films best representation and response under saturation/overexposure.).

As an example of what I am trying to get across:. if you put a magazine picture of say:Brittanny Spears under a standard optical microscope, you would not claim she is a Chameleon E.T; because her skin is made up of little multicolored dots. You would merely be seeing the process used to put her image on paper. Magnifying and twisting the pixels in a digital image is much the same. Entertaining, but hardly scientific research.

People still waste their time on this stuff?

Use your time more constructively. You're just grasping straws now.

reply to post by trodas


always fun to investigate these kinds of things

so its interesting but could it not simply be Mercury or Venus?
apod.nasa.gov...


...or nibiru? had to throw that in there

reply to post by trodas


I don't get it...

...In the enhanced images I see the Sun with a lens halo around it (which is perfectly normal). Where's the proof of a light bulb?


[edit on 6/26/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by trodas


ok - so you photoshoped it till you saw what you wanted to see

WOW - how clever of you

now why do you ignore all the evidence in thousands of images and hundreds of hours of video , from the appollo missions that could not have been lit with a ` studio lamp ` ?

lastly - your " your comparison shots " of how the " real sun " looks that ` prove ` apollo fake are simply laughable

you use images taken under different conditions , with different cameras / film / lenses and settings [ shutter / arpeture etc ] and claim that the differences " proove " fakery - what utter twaddle

as a counterpoint - just look at pics of the sun on the web [ taken from earth ] - different imaging techniques reveal different images of the sun - its that simple

Looks like the lie is far bigger that people can swallow, lol.

Let me clear this out - ANYONE can do it and see for yourself! Just load the damn image in Photoshop and move the damn curves, people.

Another camera, settings and so? BS! There is a photo from the very SAME camera:



And now, let's move the curves to input 249, output 0 and see:




This IS a Sun. Notice that the Sun has no bright hot-spot inside. The light area is compact and the Sun is kinda small and there are the rays from it!


Now this is "Sun", according to NASA:



And now, let's move the curves to input 249, output 0 and see:




So, using the VERY same image manipulation, we have a VERY different result. How can it be?

Please notice that - in direct contradiction to real Sun, there are:
- rays are completely missing, instead of ANY picture of Sun and I mean ANY
- the "Sun" is nowhere near as bright as the real Sun - in fact, it is a lot less bright that the reflection of the Sun in ocean (light has to trawel TWO times thru atmosphere AND reflection of water is not 100% at all)!
- this "Sun" has a hotspot inside, indicating a classic image of studio light with lightbulb inside


Anyone can see it for yoursels. Take this picture:
www.lpi.usra.edu...
(beware, 12MB jpeg)

Open in Photoshop, go to curves, change input to 249, keep output at 0... Anyone can do it.

Only possible conclusion. Pictures taken in studio. End of story.

For more detail, check this vid out: www.youtube.com...

reply to post by trodas


Starred and Flagged!

Great Work Trodas.

I'd like to see you do this to a couple of other Apollo images if you have the time.

reply to post by trodas

Without me having to search hundreds of Apollo photos, can you tell me which Apollo flight/film magazine designation the first photo in your post is from?

(this photo):



[edit on 7/16/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

Thank's Trodas!

Could you take a photo bulb yourself and post it to compare?
It's interesting.

S/F

Happy.

The Apollo Mission photos were taken on film. The contemporary reference photos were taken on digital cameras.

Go learn about photography and the effect of the sun on film and you'll quickly see the only thing that is proved here is:

The Apollo Mission photos were taken on film. The contemporary reference photos were taken on digital cameras.


Photoshop is a poor substitute for experience and education in photography. It proves only that you are embracing ignorance by making assumptions with limited foreknowledge of the subject matter. You had a conclusion and tried to prove it. Next time, explore without assumption and uncover a truth.

Deny Ignorance.

Exuberant1 - thank you. But I was merely folloved YewTube user greenmagoos who first dared to look on the obvious reflector more closely and discover that we actually can do a proof that this IS in fact a reflector

Soylent Green Is People - no Apollo, it is a Geminni mission. Forget witch one, probably the one before EVA? They used the same Hasselblad cameras, but that does not matter a single bit.
Every single pictures of Sun looks the same. There are rays, and great intensity of the light - everything inside and including rays is burned to max. Hence it really did not matter what mission or camera are used.
If you did not recognize reflector at first sight, only because that would automatically mean that NASA is bunch of crocks and liars, the problem is in you. Everyone lies, when they can get 30 billions for a lie.
I would lie too for 30 billions Why not? The sheople like big lies, so, here is one for them

Happyface - thinking about it. Especially with the same corrections. It should be about the same as NASA "Sun"... Maybe I can even dublicate the left corner reflection, but that depends on used reflector internals, I'm affraid. Maybe NASA should finally come clean and tell us what reflectors they used

Quest - Gemini mission compare Sun images are taken on the 70mm Kodak Ektachrome 160 film using the Hasselblad cameras. So, the comparsion is valid and very accurate. You probably never took many pictures, because you would immediatelly recognize the reflector on NASA photos. If you don't, I cannot help you to take up. I can only show you the door. You are the one that has to walk thru it.



No crater under LEM?!

( upload.wikimedia.org... )

This is example how a rocket engine - Armadillo LOX/Alcohol small rocket engine with thrust only 500 lbf:

vid: media.armadilloaerospace.com...
rapid: rapidshare.com...< br /> YouTube: youtube.com...

So, a 500 lbs rocket engine can do THIS?! Can blast a small crater in solid CONCRETE?! (second try) Now what can do a 9 982 lbs rocket engine of the Apollo LEM? ( en.wikipedia.org... )
And with a light regolit dust, to witch is possible engrave foot-marks so easily!

A very good explaination of the hoax is here:
youtube.com...
youtube.com...
youtube.com...
youtube.com...
youtube.com...

...but I think the presented evidence itself is more that enought.

reply to post by trodas

YewTube user greenmagoos

Welll....THAT'S your first problem, right there!!! Nothing he does is valid.

Here's your second problem:

This is example how a rocket engine - Armadillo LOX/Alcohol small rocket engine with thrust only 500 lbf:

It is A) an engine burning LOX/Alcohol in a Nitrogen/Oxygen environment, and B) not at all similar to the engine from the LM.

Apollo Lunar Module

Descent Propulsion System
(N2O4/Aerozine 50)

en.wikipedia.org...

The exhaust of that combination of chemicals is not as hot as the LOX/Alcohol.


Other information:

No crater should be expected. The Descent Propulsion System was throttled very far down during the final landing. The Lunar Module was no longer rapidly decelerating, so the descent engine only had to support the module's own weight, diminished by the 1/6 g lunar gravity and by the near exhaustion of the descent propellants. At landing, the engine thrust divided by the nozzle exit area is only about 10 kilopascals (1.5 PSI). Beyond the engine nozzle, the plume spreads and the pressure drops very rapidly.

en.wikipedia.org...

At least I finally figured out what is really up with 2012. Once the sun is required to use the energy efficient bulbs it will probably spell the end of life on earth. Bummer.

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
what utter twaddle

That's rich.

Yeah...I think I'm gonna need a little more evidence. Like pictures of them on the set....surely there are some of those somewhere...

They have certainly gone through a lot of trouble to get us to believe it...why should they care if we really believe or not?

If they didn't go to the moon, does that mean the government lies to us? Oh stop! They wouldn't do THAT.

What does it matter?

Originally posted by trodas
Soylent Green Is People - no Apollo, it is a Geminni mission. Forget witch one, probably the one before EVA? They used the same Hasselblad cameras, but that does not matter a single bit.
Every single pictures of Sun looks the same. There are rays, and great intensity of the light - everything inside and including rays is burned to max. Hence it really did not matter what mission or camera are used.

I still haven't found it...but knowing where the picture was taken DOES matter.

For the pictures taken on the Moon, the only thing between the Sun and the film was a very high-quality optical lens. For the pistures taken in orbit (e.g., by Gemini or the Space Shuttle), the pictures are taken from inside the spacecraft, therefore they are taken through a window -- and those windows are very thick, coated, and are definitely NOT high-quality optics.

So, photos taken from inside spacecraft and through a window will ALWAYS have different optical qualities than those not taken through a thick window.

Do you have an example of a picture of the Sun taken with a Hasselblad film camera (and then scanned in a similar manner that the Apollo pictures were scanned)...on that's not on the Moon? Just for comparison.

---------------------------------------------------------------

As for the rocket engine video...

I couldn't see a huge crater in the concrete in that YouTube video. Do you have photos?

There are a few reasons why there wouldn't be a crater:

1. As weedwacker said, the hypergolic fuel (Aerozine 50) used for the LEM is not the same fuel used by Armadillo. The Armadillo fuel burns much hotter.

2. The engines could be throttled back to 1000 lbs -- and they were also shut off before the LEM reached the Moon's surface. There were sensing probes that were 5 feet long at the bottom of the LEM's pads. When these sensing probes made contact with the Moon (while the LEM was 5 feet above the surface) a "contact light" would go on in the LEM and the astronauts would shut down the engines. This was to ensure that the engine was NOT thrusting while the bell was too close to the surface.

Of course there was a very brief lag between the contact light and engine shutdown, but suffice to say the engine bell was probably AT LEAST 3 or 4 feet from the surface when it was shut down. And, as weedwacker's post pointed out, the pressure from the engine beyond a couple of feet from the nozzle drops off drastically.

3. One more thing...there is only an inch or two of fine regolith dust on the Moon's surface at the Apollo landing sites, but under that dust is very hard-packed soils and the the bedrock-hard megaregolith.

That photo you posted of the engine bell shows the radial pattern of the dust blown away by the descent engine and the rock under it.



[edit on 7/26/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

Originally posted by trodas
So, a 500 lbs rocket engine can do THIS?! Can blast a small crater in solid CONCRETE?!

You're blatantly ignoring the importance of thrust versus nozzle size, but that's ok. More importantly even the small nozzle of the armadillo rockets can NOT blast craters in concrete:
From one of their larger rockets than Pixel:
media.armadilloaerospace.com...
Same craft as in your deceptive picture, but during the day, and no surprise, there's no crater underneath it:
www.newscientist.com...
Here's a video where it's even more obvious, no crater at all on either pad:
media.armadilloaerospace.com...

(second try) Now what can do a 9 982 lbs rocket engine of the Apollo LEM?

Also deceptive; the LM only used 2690 lbs of force at landing, all of the high thrust work was done far above the surface to initiate final descent. By the time they reached the surface they had very little fuel left and therefore much less mass to support.