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

This "we never landed on the Moon" stuff never gets old!
Oh, wait a minute. Yes, it does.

Thanks Weed/Phage for the clarification and examples.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

Different shadow angles.



The lightening around the head of the shadow is called heiligenschein.



[edit on 3/17/2010 by Phage]

Phage Awsome!

Actually this photo of the apollo mission has had me bothered for ages until just now thanks to you!

Though I still don't get how the angles of a shadow can be different if the source is the sun... I mean its sooooo far away and light surely always hits from the same direction because of this right?

Is confused how this could happen...

Cheers,

Korg.

[edit on 17-3-2010 by Korg Trinity]

reply to post by Korg Trinity

Since the shadows are on the ground, they follow the shape of the ground.
A very slight difference in terrain can make a significant difference in shadow angle. In the photo above you can't even really see the difference in the slope on the grass but you can see the difference in the shadow angles.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

Since the shadows are on the ground, they follow the shape of the ground.
A very slight difference in terrain can make a significant difference in shadow angle. In the photo above you can't even really see the difference in the slope on the grass but you can see the difference in the shadow angles.

Ahhh I follow you. Actually I followed this point you made earlier but because the image above doesn't look like its on a slope I thought there was some other mechanic at work here.

Cheers Phage,

Care to comment on gamma radiation and aluminum?? lol

All the best,

Korg,

reply to post by Korg Trinity

Actually, there are probably two things going on in that image.
A difference in slope and distortion caused by using a wide angle lens (the Apollo astronauts used a 60mm lens).

Re: Radiation. The protection provided by the ship (including its skin and all the equipment lining the interior) was more than adequate for the period of time the astronauts were exposed. The trajectories of the missions were such that a very brief period of time was spent in the fringes of the Van Allen belts.

I had radiation therapy 28 years ago and got a hell of of a lot more radiation in each session than the astronauts did during the whole mission.

Originally posted by blankduck18

thelivingmoon.com


Moon landing was a hoax
at least what we are being told
all they have to do is release the real images
Now isnt that a oxy moron

[edit on 16-3-2010 by blankduck18]

Sorry to go off track from the OP. But this is an excellent documentary here. I watched all 6 or was it 7 parts? (I forget how many it was, I finished watching them then read another 8-10 pages of thread here)....But anyhow, it was REALLY interesting, and somewhat funny.

It's pretty odd to see Rumsfeld, and Kissenger, and Kubrick's wife, and Aldrin, and his wife all talk so candidly and openly about Nixon and how the first steps and some of the video for Apollo 11 was filmed in Kubrik's London studio over the course of a couple days.

How does one debunk this? Is it a spoof? Is every statement taken out of context? I dunno but, We did put stuff on the moon thats for sure, it's there, the instumentation is still in use today.

But whether man walked on the surface, or that the pictures and video were actually all taken on the moon , I mean ALL of them, I think is still open for debate.

But it's been so long, no one even cares now. No one will even believe confessions(deathbed or not) anymore, they'll just call them crazy old Astronauts.

They sure would have to be crazy to try and land that foil and paper craft on the moon!

Either way it's a moot point. Our government lies, it conspires, this is a fact. Sometimes they get away with it, sometimes they don't. Sometimees, they partially do. Then you have two warring camps, which is always slightly annoying, to me. Either they should do it right, or not do it at all!

Seriously, I don't know what to think, like I said it's been so many years whats done is done.

It appears that despite all that has gone on, still no one has successfully taken me up on my challenge. But there are plenty of others would seem delighted in distraction, misdirection and misinformation (not to mention personal attacks and colorful theatrics) .

In my original post I exhibited evidence of the Apollo moon missions "suns" aka spotlights being both too large in such, and atypical in its luminosity. Such that filtering color correction most obviously shows it to be a giant spotlight, or at the very least regardless of what it actually is, it most definitely is NOT our sun.

Since then plenty of people have said I don't understand focal length, I don't understand zoom level, or the confines of outer space or moon texture or this and that.. They claim they can photoshop anything and apply any filter to prove anything.. But so far no one has been able to satisfactorily (sorry Phage, I think even you don't really believe your entry counted..) and successfully provided me just ONE single NONAPOLLO photo (linked to original source, and must be genuine) that when color corrected looks similar or identical to so many of the color corrected images of the Apollo "sun" that I have repeatedly shown on here. This was my one and only original challenge, and no one (not Nasa, not anyone else) has been able to step up and provide.













For the record, my one and only original challenge posted on page 3 :
www.abovetopsecret.com...




Not to mention that so far, also no one has given a good response to the touchy actual matter of my thorough and complete debunking of clavius.org given on page 7: www.abovetopsecret.com... I have to wonder to myself just why that is?!





Or what about the fact that there is no flume coming out for the ascent stage of the lunar module at liftoff except to the brief and nearly instantaneous moment at t=0 ? They fired the engines (no bursting was used) for full seven minutes or so.. If the STS RCS (reaction control system) thruster's flumes can be so prominently and visibly seen and photographed in space, there is no reason why no flume (again except for at t=0 at seperation where something funky could be seen..) can be seen coming out of the (main not rcs thrusters) engine bell of the ascent module of the LM!

This I already covered in detail on page 2: www.abovetopsecret.com...




[edit on 17-3-2010 by bochen181]

No one really wants to talk about the "waving flag" at 2:37 into the clip. I've heard all kinds of fantastical stories and "excuses and explanations" ranging from static discharge, to shaky camera, to moving camera, to earthquake on the moon, to UFO influence, to residual vibrations/ residual motion, to "the moon has a very thin atmosphere", endless "explanations" - but no one really wants to admit that the flag waving at 2:37 could only have happened in a staged environment.





And again with the astronaughty FALLING UP at 2:23 in ( www.youtube.com... ) I will forgo all the bizarre excuses I heard about this one.. (but one of which said it was due to some 'missing frames', kind of reminds me of what the Pentagon said about its released "footage" ) but and again no one wants to face or attack this evidence head on.. Plenty of people are more than happy to go for the low hanging fruit, but just like the thing with 9/11 - the debunkers don't want to deal with the hardcore stuff and would just rather it disappear and get under a rug somewhere..


I think what has happened is even though in this country (or in the West in general, or even on the Internet) we pay lip service to the so-called "freedom of speech" and expression, now we have "protest zones" and "free speech zones" and of course since the majority of forums on the internet are privately owned and the site admins make the ultimate call, and since all of them (most of them anyway) have catered to the "no discussion of religion and politics or any other heated, heavily debated, argumentative or personal, etc issues".. (with exceptions to sites such as this one) in many a ways this has in effect curtailed free speech to no different than Cuba or former Soviet Union.. I have to say that AboveTopSecret is one of the more "allowing" sites when it comes to this. This is a good thing, but sites like this are too limited a venue. So - Surely, one could say you can free speech all you want in your own backyard, or if you aren't happy with the way some forums are step up no one is stopping you from starting your own. While these are technically true, it would be unreasonable to expect these "solutions" to be applied in mass by most individuals. In this digital/internet age where more and more is done at the mercy of internet and the companies, and governments who control it, the so-called "Constitutional" freedom of speech has already been effectively rendered useless, outdated, and void. I read some thread in another section on this forum (I didn't have time to really delve into it, so I don't know how true it is) that soon "9/11 truthers" could soon be labeled as lone domestic terrorists and stripped of all rights regardless of citizenship..It is in this kind of general direction that this nation, and our world is headed, and yet as we speak we have so many people on a conspiracy forum attacking the evidence I have brought up and blindly supporting NASA's "official story" regardless of whether or not they themselves actually believe in what they are claiming and regardless of whether or not it is the actual real truth of objective reality.

So the illusion of having a free Internets in practicality is basically really useless when most of the forums and social networks and other places have an implicit policy of "self censorship".. If your topic becomes somewhat controversial and/or heated, all it takes is for someone to 'report' on you and soon in the name of political correctness all will cave.

But not only are forums :self censoring:, the human mind self censors itself! I just find this really sad..

When I was younger I used to watch Apollo 13 ALL THE TIME. (yes I know now that it's not to be taken as reference or source material, but back then it was as close as it got) I darn near memorized the script line by line.. I built saturn V rockets, visited Nasa in Houston and in Florida. I was one of the few enthusiasts kids that wrote to NASA asking for photos and materials (this was before the Internets become popular..) In short I believed the hype and the lie for the longest time and REALLY had emotional attachment to the whole US space program..

But the more I learn about this "staged moon landing" the more compelling evidence I find that there was simply no way in he-ll man has ever landed on the moon..

I am convinced this again was indeed (sadly) an inside job, a cover-up, staged and faked..

40 years ago NASA and the NSA didn't have the technology that they have today.. If we were fooled about something as monumental as the moon landing, then what else in major world history is staged, fake, etc?! This is just one small piece of the puzzle that takes one down the path of realizing that the world is totally not what it first appears or seems at all.. Imagine with the technology we have today how many things can be staged, faked, etc?! Heck for all we know, they could hire James Cameron to direct the next Manned Mars Mission.

I had a zombie tell me one time that he got an email from a friend saying that 9/11 was staged because there was no plane debris at the Pentagon.. SO then he googled for it and found a photo of debris of the American Airlines at the Pentagon (said photo was disinformation and again staged/fake) and that satisfied him and then he went back to sleep...

It is almost like people's brains on a subconscious level will look for anything and any everything to keep things going the way they were.. like a self propping status quo.. irrespective of the ACTUAL truth, even when they claim to be LOOKING for the truth.. Perhaps there is some subconscious reasoning for this? They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but scientists have found the underlying reason most people (all else being equal) would prefer to look at a more beautiful person of the opposite gender is because the facial features allow the brain to capture and comprehend with least amount of cognitive processing. So perhaps denial in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary is simply our human evolved defense and shutdown mechanisms that protect us from cognitive overload and the emotional distress that we may experience from having our worldview shattered to bits and pieces?

Perhaps so. I don't know for sure. But what still somewhat puzzles me is the disproportionate amount of people on here (or elsewhere for that matter) who get so personally angry, frustrated, upset, heated and who take this "moon hoax" thing so darn personal whenever it is brought up. Even more so than 9/11 (in my experience I'd say MUCH more so than 9/11) people take it almost really as a PERSONAL offense whenever the subject of a potential moon hoax is mentioned or even implied.. I find that human behavior and response to be exceedingly fascinating.. I mean it isn't like they themselves worked in the actual Apollo rockets or they stepped on the moon.. It isn't like I said THEY faked the moon landings.. I understand (and appreciate) the whole civilized debate part, but it seems when it comes to the moon landing everyone gets so defensive and personal about it.. perhaps more so than any other "conspiracy theory". I've always found that to be really odd..

So at first I thought this was American and/or US pride.. We beat the Russians to the moon, we were the first nation to land on the moon, no one else has ever landed on the moon, blah blah blah.. But even that doesn't really account for the whole of it. I honestly think it is something even deeper in the depths of human emotions that get all stirred up at the mention this kind of thing. I think more than just an American response, it is a human one. Regardless of which nation got there first, the whole world (or the part that had access to TV anyway..) watched the original "moon landing" in July 1969. It was forever written in the history books and imprinted into the minds and souls of that entire generation, and later taught in schools to children across the Earth. Heck I believed it. They could have (and did) fool me.

Unlike most other "conspiracy theories" this one's ultimate answer and truth is not forever lost in the stories of man. We may have no practical way to currently verify and confirm 100%, but the fact of the matter is no one is arguing that whether or not man has ever landed on the moon, the evidence (or lack thereof) will be preserved for at least another ~4 billion years.. NASA cheated us (which I'm pretty sure they did) I guess that doesn't say much about our species nor it's real accomplishment, huh? We are cheaters and faked it all from the top down.

Unlike 9/11, the 'evidence' has not been destroyed.. All the videos and still photos have been digitally preserved and are in public domain for the rest of humanity. We are either looking at real pictures of the real moon (though I seriously doubt it) or staring at one of the most elaborate hoax ever perpetrated by man.. I would say this monumental scam tops the likes of 9/11 hands down.. Right now the truth is out there - literally.. On the moon, about 40 years ago, either some advanced monkeys landed their washing machines or they didn't.. Unlike most other "conspiracy theories" the real truth about this one isn't going to go away..

I think more than anything (and this is just my opinion and belief) that those staunchest supporters of the official government sponsored moon story in face of compelling evidence to the contrary are in actuality the most secretly scared of the truth that they would rather not even fathom or contemplate the possibility of someday waking up to it - and thus this is the only plausible explanation of why they get so stirred up and so quickly resort to personal attacks on such a (upon first glance) seemingly scientific and impersonal matter. So they saw it on TV, or their parents say it on TV, that means it happened in reality? The world alas is never so simple or one sided, many things aren't what they appear at first glance, empirical evidence has shown that time and time and time and time again the official story is hardly ever what really happened and almost never faithfully reflect objective reality. So to recap, I think it is our human nature of being afraid of change, afraid of facing the dark unknown, and our predilection of these things that we'd rather take comfort and solace in a lie than to drop our walls of denial and see the truth as it really is, regardless of whether or not it measures up to our preconceived notions and ideals as to how we thought "it ought to be".. It is fear of the uncomfortable and a gravitation towards the cozy and more 'socially stable and accepted herd mentality' status quo that is at the core of driving those deeper into denial.. It is also the fact that the most powerful nation on Earth representing its most superior species (mankind) could have faked its sole greatest achievement of all time and along the way fooled so convincingly entire generations of kids and adults, laymen and experts alike.. If the moon landing was faked, that says a lot about our nation, our entire species as a whole, and maybe even about the evolution of life on our planet. As humans we are the most intellectual and intelligent of species,but also the most social, the most devious and most cunning of them all. And sometimes we even fool ourselves.. We can run but cannot hide from our true nature, and that even greater TRUTH out there.



[edit on 17-3-2010 by bochen181]

reply to post by Korg Trinity


The shadows have the same angle, but they only *appear* to have different angles on a photo because of the type of camera and lens. I believe a wide angle lens exaggerates that effect while a longer focal length (such as a telephoto lens) minimizes the effect.

This is also why wide angle close ups make people's noses get disproportionately large, and why telephoto shots make all the cars on a long highway appear nearly the same size regardless of distance.

-rrr

reply to post by Nola213

The Dark Side of the Moon was not a documentary. It was a mockumentary.

So bochen181 you are trying to claim because the sun size and contrast are different on the Moon surface shots and the ISS shots that proves they were not taken on the Moon.

First of all as others have stated shots taken looking directly at the sun will suffer from exposure problems like reduced contrast ,flare, over exposure etc.

Type of camera ie 35mm , medium format even digital and focal length of lens all have an effect on how the sum would look size wise on the picture.

Even 2 digital cameras side by side with same sensor size and lens will produce different images with regards to colours and contrast.

As for the videos posted above go to you tube look for a user called shanedk have a look at his NASA videos heres a link

www.youtube.com.../u/14/GbJvgqoeFSU

reply to post by bochen181


Five ranting posts in a row, and you're asking all the same questions again that have already been answered ---- you simply dismiss and discount the answers you are given.

Since then plenty of people have said I don't understand focal length... I don't understand ... successfully provided me just ONE single NONAPOLLO photo (linked to original source, and must be genuine) that when color corrected looks similar or identical to so many of the color corrected images of the Apollo "sun" that I have repeatedly shown on here.

Tell ya what you do....go buy a Hasselblad, make sure it's the same lens, match the film the best you can, set the exposures (f-stop and shutter speed) the same, then pick a nice sunny day, with Sun low in sky, and go shoot some pictures. You'll reproduce the results just fine.

Or what about the fact that there is no flume coming out for the ascent stage of the lunar module at liftoff except to the brief and nearly instantaneous moment at t=0 ?

Oh, for Pete's sake! This has been told to you numerous times. Do your own research, please. NOT on the 'conspiracy' sites.

If the STS RCS (reaction control system) thruster's flumes can be so prominently and visibly seen and photographed in space....

There's a big clue, right there. Stop, search and study the differences. Different spacecraft, different reaction control propellants.

reply to post by bochen181


Can you explain again what is it that color correction tries to do? from the looks of it color correction is simply filtering the image to discard some color information and keep other color information.

Since both the sun and the big bright circle on the photo consist of fully saturated image, they are as white as the medium allows, so any color filtering or correction is going to tell you more about the medium than the sun or light source, any amount of color "correction" or filtering is for the most part result in a monochrome image. Any shape or contour is going to show the relative saturation edges of each color on the medium, film or digital.

Based on your posts, one would have to assume that you believe "color correction" allows obtaining some kind of unique fingerprint of the sun by which one can verify any image and confirm or deny whether the sun is in it. But how exactly this happens is a mystery to everyone but yourself.

So, unless you can adequately explain color correction and its purpose (not by showing examples of something entirely unrelated, but by actually explain the principles behind it, or at least pointing us to a source that can explain it) then your color correction process merely appears like something made up.

I for one, a signal processing engineer, cannot figure out any way of distinguishing the sun or a bright enough spotlight merely by color, not knowing the type of film used, or white balance process used, the spectrum of the supposed lamp used, or f-stop for the camera I would think that one would have to rely on other indications to know whether or not the sun is in the picture, such as the angles of shadows and full description of the terrain's contours.

I have a very strong feeling that you realize all this and you are merely creating all this noise to get attention, though I hope I am wrong and you come back with an adequate description of color correction that teaches me something new.

-rrr

reply to post by bochen181


Mate, thanks for the great work. Sadly I'm not sure how many will and/or digest it. I believe it was teh success of the moon hoax which led them to try 9/11 on us. The moon hoax was 'victimless' - 9/11 was not. If either of these get outed/exposed the other will follow quickly.

Thats why the dis-info army is here full guns blazing.

9/11 opened my eyes. So then I went looking at other hard-to-explain events (those that defied physics etc) and I came here. Now I know.

Cheers

reply to post by Phage
Just finished looking at it myself, all inserts of conversation without direct references. The last frame is a disclaimer. I looked hard for the humour Oh well, somebody might find it funny!

reply to post by smurfy

It's made by a Frenchman.