NASA not responding to FOIA about atypical size and luminisioty of Apollo moon "sun" photos

page: 1
46
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+14 more 
posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 11:20 PM
link   
NASA has so far failed to acknowledge and failed to respond to my FOIA inquires into the nature of the weird atypical "sun" (both in terms of size, shape and luminosity) seen in these Apollo moon photos.


digg.com...

www.scribd.com...


[size=10pt]A gigantic sun in your face!

Are you seriously kidding me? Who is NASA trying to fool here? The sun is orders of magnitude too large here! Compare and contrast the sun of the sun in the vacuum of space of the Apollo moon missions and the space shuttle and ISS missions.

AS12-46-6739HR, AS17-147-22509HR, AS17-147-22554HR

history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...


Now compare to images of the sun taken also by astronauts in space on the ISS/STS/etc missions:

iss022e068274,s130e006570,s129e007592,s129e007533

[img width=1000 height=621]http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/3538/002vr.jpg[/img]
[img width=500 height=311]http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-125/hires/s125e012372.jpg[/img]
spaceflight.nasa.gov... es/iss022e068274.jpg
spaceflight1.nasa.gov... es/s130e006570.jpg
spaceflight.nasa.gov... /s129e007592.jpg
spaceflight.nasa.gov... /s129e007533.jpg
spaceflight.nasa.gov... /s125e012372.jpg




There is simply NO comparison whatsoever! The latter photos look like how a realistic sun would appear in space, and the former Apollo "moon" photos of the 'sun' look much more like very large floodlights or Saturn-V sized gigantic titanic stage-lights..


history.nasa.gov...

img3.imageshack.us...

Original non-color-corrected photo: history.nasa.gov...

[size=12pt]~One Giant Spotlight for Mankind!~





img237.imageshack.us...





[edit on 15-3-2010 by bochen181]

[edit on 15-3-2010 by bochen181]

[edit on 15-3-2010 by bochen181]




posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by bochen181
 


I've never seen these photos. Thanks for posting. The moon is a good clip from us...but in relation to the sun it shouldn't be that much of a difference in size considering the moon travels around the earth. That is a huge sun for sure.

One thing I noticed is the sun dogs in the photo. At least I think they are sun dogs. If they are sun dogs then there is an atmosphere on the moon.


Sun Dogs are created when light passes through ice crystals as they fall through a cloud. The ice crystals act exactly the same as a glass prism, bending the light and seperating the colors. Since the amount the light bends depends on the color (red bends less than green and blue) the red looks closer to the sun than the blue. The amount of bending is always the same, so sundogs always appear the same distance away from the sun.


[edit on 15-3-2010 by ExPostFacto]



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
reply to post by bochen181
 


I've never seen these photos. Thanks for posting. The moon is a good clip from us...but in relation to the sun it shouldn't be that much of a difference in size considering the moon travels around the earth. That is a huge sun for sure.

One thing I noticed is the sun dogs in the photo. At least I think they are sun dogs. If they are sun dogs then there is an atmosphere on the moon.


Sun Dogs are created when light passes through ice crystals as they fall through a cloud. The ice crystals act exactly the same as a glass prism, bending the light and seperating the colors. Since the amount the light bends depends on the color (red bends less than green and blue) the red looks closer to the sun than the blue. The amount of bending is always the same, so sundogs always appear the same distance away from the sun.


[edit on 15-3-2010 by ExPostFacto]


There is no appreciable atmosphere on the moon. But playing devils advocate for now, if that were true then there would be far greater/dense atmosphere on Earth too! But even if one were to be using that exact same camera and film/lens to take a snapshot of the sun on earth I guarantee you the sun would NOT look that big..

Which means only one thing.. those photos were taken on a production stage..




Notice the hotspot and falloff around the astronauts.. and the pool of light directly behind Aldrin prove that he is standing in the beam of a spotlight. If this were real sunlight, the lunar surface should be evenly lit.

jayweidner.com...

Front Screen Projection











[edit on 15-3-2010 by bochen181]



Basically NASA used scale models when and where it could, and in the scale models you could see the terrain being lite up almost perfectly bright with no weird hotspot or falloff anomalies. However, for closeup shots they could not use scale models and thus had to resort to using stages and backdrops..That is usually when the problems of hotspot/falloff come to light (no pun intended).. and because



Because on a large set the lighting cannot be anything like as bright as the real Sun, a very large light source would have been necessary in order to obtain adequate coverage over the expansive ‘moonscape’.

Whatever the actual construction of the Apollo super light rig, it appears not to have been perfect as an artificial sun. There are noticeable hot-spots (or brighter areas) around shadows where the photographer has the 'sun' immediately behind him. An effect that can be seen in the centre of many Apollo photographs – here is an example:


So ironically that would also explain your original post saying that there was atmosphere on the "moon"... if these photos were staged in an elaborate set then OF COURSE there would be atmosphere! But even on earth (with 1 atm) nothing explains away that HUGE giant spotlight looking sun! That is of course NASA had to employ a SUPERSPOTLIGHT to make it look like the "sun", and even then it still had problems of hotspot and falloff..

One Giant Spotlight for Mankind, huh?



[edit on 16-3-2010 by bochen181]


+18 more 
posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 12:01 AM
link   
That FOIA is completely unnecessary because it's obvious by looking at the photos that the white disk is not only the physical sun, but also lens flare. Look at the spacecraft's structure, for instance. Part of the white disk is in front of the spacecraft.

Why do some humans (like the person who made the FOIA) lack even the most basic analytic abilities?



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by bochen181
 

If you want to know the truth about this topic, look up "Lunar Heiligenschein" and retro-reflectivity. It has to do with the nature of the moon dust and how it reflects light. Remember, the moon is not made of Earth dirt or sand. It doesn't behave in ways you are naturally familiar with.


+2 more 
posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by harrytuttle
That FOIA is completely unnecessary because it's obvious by looking at the photos that the white disk is not only the physical sun, but also lens flare. Look at the spacecraft's structure, for instance. Part of the white disk is in front of the spacecraft.

Why do some humans (like the person who made the FOIA) lack even the most basic analytic abilities?


Would you like to explain this to me then?










[edit on 16-3-2010 by bochen181]



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by harrytuttle
reply to post by bochen181
 

If you want to know the truth about this topic, look up "Lunar Heiligenschein" and retro-reflectivity. It has to do with the nature of the moon dust and how it reflects light. Remember, the moon is not made of Earth dirt or sand. It doesn't behave in ways you are naturally familiar with.



The ISS/STS and Apollo moon photos are both photos taken by astronauts in space facing the sun.. what does "moon dirt" have anything to do with anything?!



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by bochen181
>snip<

Notice the hotspot and falloff around the astronauts.. and the pool of light directly behind Aldrin prove that he is standing in the beam of a spotlight. If this were real sunlight, the lunar surface should be evenly lit.

>snip<
[edit on 16-3-2010 by bochen181]

Or variations in the surface of the moon reflected more sunlight towards or away from the camera. Also, the curvature of the surface would cause less light to be reflected as the distance to the camera increases.



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by bochen181
Would you like to explain this to me then?

Different cameras with different focal lengths, and field of view?


+11 more 
posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by bochen181
Would you like to explain this to me then?

Yes, it's called focal length of the lens. You know, the "zoom" level of the lens. Those ISS photos are taken with a "wide angle" lens, probably something along the lines of 18mm or less, which creates a fish eye view. You know how car mirrors often say "OBJECTS IN MIRROR MAY BE CLOSER THAN THEY APPEAR"? They say that because wide angle views "shrink" the apparent size of objects.

So, in the ISS photos, the sun appears to be very small. The moon photos are taken with a narrower angle lens, and combined with the fact that the camera/media/lens are completely different (40 years older) than the newer camera equipment, there is a larger "lens flare" around the sun, making it appear to be larger than in the ISS photos.

Basic photographic principles. Pick up some binoculars. Look at a tree with them the correct way, then flip the binoculars backwards and look at the tree again. The tree will appear small.

[edit on 16-3-2010 by harrytuttle]



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by harrytuttle

Originally posted by bochen181
Would you like to explain this to me then?

Yes, it's called focal length of the lens. You know, the "zoom" level of the lens. Those ISS photos are taken with a "wide angle" lens, probably something along the lines of 18mm or less, which creates a fish eye view. You know how car mirrors often say "OBJECTS IN MIRROR MAY BE CLOSER THAN THEY APPEAR"? They say that because wide angle views "shrink" the apparent size of objects.

So, in the ISS photos, the sun appears to be very small. The moon photos are taken with a narrower angle lens, and combined with the fact that the camera/media/lens are completely different (40 years older) than the newer camera equipment, there is a larger "lens flare" around the sun, making it appear to be larger than in the ISS photos.

Basic photographic principles. Pick up some binoculars. Look at a tree with them the correct way, then flip the binoculars backwards and look at the tree again. The tree will appear small.

[edit on 16-3-2010 by harrytuttle]


Look at this color correct composite of images carefully, can you really say focus lenses can explain away all the other anomalies present in these image?




+11 more 
posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 12:29 AM
link   
I guess you must have been in space to know what a "realistic" Sun would look like.

How about these?












posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by harrytuttle

Originally posted by bochen181
Would you like to explain this to me then?

Yes, it's called focal length of the lens. You know, the "zoom" level of the lens. Those ISS photos are taken with a "wide angle" lens, probably something along the lines of 18mm or less, which creates a fish eye view. You know how car mirrors often say "OBJECTS IN MIRROR MAY BE CLOSER THAN THEY APPEAR"? They say that because wide angle views "shrink" the apparent size of objects.

So, in the ISS photos, the sun appears to be very small. The moon photos are taken with a narrower angle lens, and combined with the fact that the camera/media/lens are completely different (40 years older) than the newer camera equipment, there is a larger "lens flare" around the sun, making it appear to be larger than in the ISS photos.

Basic photographic principles. Pick up some binoculars. Look at a tree with them the correct way, then flip the binoculars backwards and look at the tree again. The tree will appear small.

[edit on 16-3-2010 by harrytuttle]




Differences in camera hardware or f stops do not even begin to explain the differences illustrated here:



[quote=Hasselblad]Hasselblad EDC (Electric Data Camera)
This is a specially designed version of the motorized 500EL intended for use on the surface of the moon, where the first lunar pictures were taken on 20 July 1969 by Neil Armstrong. The camera is equipped with a specially designed Biogon lens with a focal length of 60 mm, with a polarization filter mounted on the lens. A glass plate (Reseau-Plate), provided with reference crosses which are recorded on the film during exposure, is in contact with the film, and these crosses can be seen on all the pictures taken on the moon from 1969 to 1972. The 12 HEDC cameras used on the surface of the moon were left there. Only the film magazines were brought back.

A focal length of 60mm on a 70mm film camera is approximately equal to a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera. So, no great deal of magnification, certainly not enought to produce the enormous suns seen on the Apollo photographs.


Also note that ***70mm*** Hasselblads were used on the Shuttle Missions:




[quote=Hasselblad] Hasselblad ELS (Space)
The ELS is a modified 553 ELX, with flash metering removed and leatherette replaced with thin metal plates. This camera was used in the early 1990´s on the Space Shuttle missions. The film magazines use 70 mm perforated film and are equipped with electronic data imprinting, enabling the recording of time and picture number for each exposure.



[quote=Hasselblad]Hasselblad 203S
This space camera is a focal-plane shutter camera based on the standard 203FE version. It is equipped with a special version of the Winder CW. The film magazines use 70 mm perforated film and are equipped with electronic data imprinting, enabling the recording of time and picture number for each exposure. Since the computers onboard have full control over the position of the shuttle it is fairly easy to identify over which spot on the earth the picture was taken.

beta.hasselblad.com... e/space-cameras.aspx

Although the exterior look may change - the essential mechanism of a Hasselblad hasn't changed very much over the years


+2 more 
posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Look at this color correct composite of images carefully, can you really say focus lenses can explain away all the other anomalies present in these image?

You don't understand. It's not the "focus". It's "focal length". Not only do you not understand what I'm saying, you don't even know what you are talking about.

As for the other "anomalies", I have no idea what you are talking about. Passing images through photoshop's filters to make them look weird (green, high contrast ratio) isn't revealing anything useful at all. I could pass a photo of Barack Obama through photoshop filters to make him look like an alien, but that doesn't mean he's an alien.


+3 more 
posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
I guess you must have been in space to know what a "realistic" Sun would look like.

How about these?












None of those pictures quite can compare to this one:


history.nasa.gov...



[edit on 16-3-2010 by bochen181]



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 12:33 AM
link   
You're ignoring facts that don't support your theory.

It's clearly the sun in the images you posted. You can see it in the center of the flare.

It's instantly obvious.



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by bochen181
 

So the Sun is only a "little" too big in the images I showed and that's acceptable.

You are looking at overexposures full of lens flare you are not looking at the Sun itself.



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by harrytuttle

Look at this color correct composite of images carefully, can you really say focus lenses can explain away all the other anomalies present in these image?

You don't understand. It's not the "focus". It's "focal length". Not only do you not understand what I'm saying, you don't even know what you are talking about.

As for the other "anomalies", I have no idea what you are talking about. Passing images through photoshop's filters to make them look weird (green, high contrast ratio) isn't revealing anything useful at all. I could pass a photo of Barack Obama through photoshop filters to make him look like an alien, but that doesn't mean he's an alien.


You have never heard of color correction to detect anomalies in underlying images/photos?

Let me demonstrate to you what I mean then...

For example:

Well some more funky monkey business-as-usual



Looks like they did this in MSPAINT.. What NASA can't afford Photoshop?





Here is how to do it yourself:

1) Get the image from NASA: grin.hq.nasa.gov...
2) Install the free and simple irfanview (or your favorite photo editor tool)
3) Set the right color corrections (as demonstrated visually above) (if forum resizes, please click to enlarge screenshot : img199.imageshack.us... )

img199.imageshack.us...

update:

and again with this one:



original source photo: grin.hq.nasa.gov...


and again:


source: grin.hq.nasa.gov...

and again:


source: history.nasa.gov...


Now you know what I am talking about my color correction anonymoies?



See what I mean by the dramatic differences not only in size and shape but also in color correction view of the sun?




[edit on 16-3-2010 by bochen181]



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by bochen181
 


Have you ever heard of compression artifacts?

You're taking a heavily compressed JPG off of the internet...what do you expect? Of course there will be artifacts.

Occam's Razor dude.



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by bochen181
 

Until you provide a link that explains EXPLICITLY what focal length was used in those ISS photos and Moon photos, you got nothing.





new topics

top topics



 
46
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join