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

The moon landing i believe it took place in a studio of some sort the same goes for the so called mars rover, which i think it they might filmed outside canada

Nice pics op and a good sound argument with valid points and supporting information and evidence all around. Bravo! In the end, it doesn't matter whether the op "wins" or not, only that we have enough evidence and information to deny ignorance and form our own opinions. I also, not being a photographer, wonder at the size of the sun in the original photos and if how much different those shots would look with modern equipment.

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter


when you say "outside Canada" What do you mean and what leads you to believe that?

Originally posted by abecedarian

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.

Also, the curvature of the surface would cause less light to be reflected as the distance to the camera increases.

---
No problem in this photo - where likely scale model is being used..



history.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by amazing
Nice pics op and a good sound argument with valid points and supporting information and evidence all around. Bravo! In the end, it doesn't matter whether the op "wins" or not, only that we have enough evidence and information to deny ignorance and form our own opinions. I also, not being a photographer, wonder at the size of the sun in the original photos and if how much different those shots would look with modern equipment.

Okay, I have to respond to this.

The argument is not sound, the points are not valid, and there is no evidence. The OP has been given very clear explanations for the images he posted, but chooses not to listen.

If you are not a photographer and you are choosing not to listen to photographers about photographic issues, how exactly are you deyning ignorance regarding issues pertaining to photographic evidence?

reply to post by bochen181

The images from the "GRIN" site are not really original images, they are cleaned up versions. This is often seen in images for these purposes.

This collection is intended for the media, publishers, and the general public looking for high-quality photographs.

For example, here is an unretouched version of the Apollo 12 image.
www.lpi.usra.edu...




[edit on 3/16/2010 by Phage]

Originally posted by ImplausibleDeniability

Originally posted by amazing
Nice pics op and a good sound argument with valid points and supporting information and evidence all around. Bravo! In the end, it doesn't matter whether the op "wins" or not, only that we have enough evidence and information to deny ignorance and form our own opinions. I also, not being a photographer, wonder at the size of the sun in the original photos and if how much different those shots would look with modern equipment.

Okay, I have to respond to this.

The argument is not sound, the points are not valid, and there is no evidence. The OP has been given very clear explanations for the images he posted, but chooses not to listen.

If you are not a photographer and you are choosing not to listen to photographers about photographic issues, how exactly are you deyning ignorance regarding issues pertaining to photographic evidence?

I don't think you understand the nature of argument and discussion. The OP had a good question and post. It doesn't matter if he's wrong, because many on these boards believe the Apollo landings to be fake. the only way to deny ignorance is to bring these theories and questions to light and argue the points. He's arguing his point well and he's being argued against. This is the nature of Above Top Secret. I've learned a great deal from this thread about photography and the Apollo missions and I'm sure i'm not alone.

It's never good to Stop questioning things you don't understand. It's never good to just accept statements from "experts" without questioning why and getting answers in terms that the layman can understand.

Originally posted by amazing

I don't think you understand the nature of argument and discussion. The OP had a good question and post. It doesn't matter if he's wrong, because many on these boards believe the Apollo landings to be fake. the only way to deny ignorance is to bring these theories and questions to light and argue the points. He's arguing his point well and he's being argued against. This is the nature of Above Top Secret. I've learned a great deal from this thread about photography and the Apollo missions and I'm sure i'm not alone.

It's never good to Stop questioning things you don't understand. It's never good to just accept statements from "experts" without questioning why and getting answers in terms that the layman can understand.

Fair enough amazing, thanks for taking the time to respond. I appreciate it and agree with your point of view.

Originally posted by harrytuttle
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.

Here is APollo 12 landing site panaroma





the pictures taken below were at :



history.nasa.gov...

70mm Hasselblad
Lens Focal Length: 60 mm
Film Width: 70 mm

You tell me if the sun is too big or too small.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by bochen181

 

The images from the "GRIN" site are not really original images, they are cleaned up versions. This is often seen in images for these purposes.

This collection is intended for the media, publishers, and the general public looking for high-quality photographs.

For example, here is an unretouched version of the Apollo 12 image.
www.lpi.usra.edu...




[edit on 3/16/2010 by Phage]

I was using that to demonstrate to another poster on here what I meant by "false color correction" since he stated he did not understood my mentioning of uncovering "sun" anomnoies... (spell check in chrome not working)

When one applies the same color correction techniques REGARDLESS OF SUN SIZE, one sees that the STS/ISS sun photos look like nature sun in space while the and Apollo moon "sun" photos appear VERY MUCH like one giant artificial spotlight ... I mean just look at the difference!




[edit on 16-3-2010 by bochen181]

Originally posted by amazing
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter

 

when you say "outside Canada" What do you mean and what leads you to believe that?

There is a special mars landscape in canada just for mars training doesnt matter on what they could be.

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter


Awesome. Do you have the link? I'll google it later either way.

just one thought comes to my mind, Hollywood must have really messed it up this time!

makes me wonder if the moon is what we are told it is.... or is it something else?

Icke's theory in his new book (not out yet tho) is that the moon is an artificial sphere, a giant spaceship.... or something.....

that makes total sense


i, for one, don't believe a thing nasa says, and mainstream science for that matter

it's all crap

mainstream religion + mainstream science = full house (of CRAP)

take a look at the shadow on the radar dish.....
..............that is shizzle my nizzle!

[edit on 16/3/10 by spearhead]

???

[edit on 16/3/10 by spearhead]

reply to post by bochen181


Your point is?

The photo appears to have the sun located mostly overhead, though slightly to the left of the frame. That would cause a mostly evenly lit picture.

[edit on 3/16/2010 by abecedarian]

reply to post by bochen181


Okay...so....even if what you say is 100% true, why would NASA release this photo to the world if it contained a gotcha of this magnitude? Wouldn't they trash this photo immediately, or know better than to have taken it in the first place?

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
The moon landing i believe it took place in a studio of some sort the same goes for the so called mars rover, which i think it they might filmed outside canada

I would have to agree... Another something funky, the LEM ascent you can clearly see does not produce any exhaust flume coming out of the rocket engine nozzle when leaving the moon and returning to lunar orbiter to redock with the command module. There is a video clip of it at Wikipedia, en.wikipedia.org... , clearly no visible flume coming out of the ascent engines..

Infact even in these still photos (when the LEM ascent stage is supposedly flying up to rejoin the CM) you don't see any flumes coming out of the engine nozzle at all..
spaceflight.nasa.gov...
AS16-122-19535

The Ascent Stage engine, which they called the APS, put out a continuous 3500 pound thrust and burned continuously for over 7 minutes.

The Delta Velocity required to attain lunar orbit is about 1,852 m/s. That comes out to be about 4,142.8 mph. Consider a Boeing 747 cruising speed is about 567 mph and the Concorde was at 1,354 mph. The muzzle velocity of bullet from M-16A2 rifle is 'only' 1,908 mph..

So, atmosphere or not, reduced gravity or not, the ascent stage of the LEM had to be going pretty darn fast by any standards to enter lunar orbit and redock with the CSM.

Except for the very brief moment and almost instantaneous moment at lunar liftoff, we don't see any flumes anywhere in any of the Apollo videos or still image photos..

The LEM's ascent and descent modules used hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide, the same stuff the space shuttle uses for its Orbital Maneuvering Subsystem and Reaction Control System.

Here you see the RCS thrusters firing on the STS.




and another view of STS RCS:



Here is some detailed data:



And yet and yet, with exception to brief split second at liftoff when the LEM ascent stages appears to bolt away from descent stage, there is absolutely no flume coming out of those engines whatsoever..

Kinda really makes you wonder how magical the LEM ascent stage must have been .. maybe running on UFO anti-gravity propulsion? (jk) But seriously, this had to be on a huge set or stage somewhere and more likely the liftoff from "lunar" surface was done using a crane of some sort..

[edit on 16-3-2010 by bochen181]

[edit on 16-3-2010 by bochen181]

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter


The Moon Landing was not faked. None of the claims made by conspiracy theorists to support a hoax hold any water at all and all have been debunked.

Simple logic proves we went to the moon. Thousands of top scientists worked for nearly a decade to ready the moon landing, that would mean thousands would have to be in on the conspiracy. And why bother building a massive uber expensive Saturn V rocket if you've got a trusty moonscape studio

We're talking rocket scientists. They designed the lunar lander and all the equipment with the intent of going to the moon. Many people watched the rocket launch. Are telling me they wasted that kind of money to launch an empty Saturn V into space and not even make an attempt at the moon?

After the moon landing footage and photos were released and yet not one single moon scientist anywhere in the WORLD cried foul. If there were any truth to the claims of the conspiracy theorists the experts and scientists would see it and know it. The Russians especially would have gone ape if they had even the slightest inkling of a hoax. Not a single legitimate scientist, whether they worked for NASA or not, has ever come forth to support the moon landing hoax and all claims of said hoax have been disproved.

The OP of this thread is absurd. We're dealing with a really big bright lens flare, nothing more.

[edit on 16-3-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

Originally posted by ImplausibleDeniability
reply to post by bochen181

 

Okay...so....even if what you say is 100% true, why would NASA release this photo to the world if it contained a gotcha of this magnitude? Wouldn't they trash this photo immediately, or know better than to have taken it in the first place?

These photos have been in public domain for many decades, for them to suddenly re-edit or misplace them is almost impossibly without causing exponentially more suspicion.. Remember back in the 1960 and early 1970's the public would never have dreamed today we will have Photoshop and 3d max and all this software and computational speeds..

Make no mistake, these photos don't PROOF nasa didn't land on the moon (they can't prove something DIDN"T happen) although it does cast suspicion on why make doctored/editted/staged/faked photos if they were able to successfully land on the moon in the first place?