Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 3
46
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
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 Canadian 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.

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


With all due respect, "lens flare" (or more approritaely sun size) is just the half/quarter of it (although NASA is not even answering THAT half/quarter)




I don't think parallax can even explain away this one..




or what about this one ?
history.nasa.gov...




posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by bochen181
 


So because NASA likes to tweak photos, recolor portions, or touch them up there's a conspiracy?

What exactly is the purpose of the editing? Can you think of anything sinister they could be editing out or altering? I sure can't.

Edit to Add: If you find something where they are editing out aliens, ruins, unicorns or elves it would be substantial, but pasting in the LEM or an astronaut doesn't really denote any malicious or sinister intent. It is weird though...

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



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by bochen181
 




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.

Incorrect.

The LM ascent stage rocket used Aerozine 50 (hydrazine and unsymmetric dimethylhydrazine) with an oxidizer.
en.wikipedia.org...


The shuttle RCS uses monomethyl hydrazine with an oxidizer.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by bochen181
 


So because NASA likes to tweak photos, recolor portions, or touch them up there's a conspiracy?

What exactly is the purpose of the editing? Can you think of anything sinister they could be editing out or altering? I sure can't.

Edit to Add: If you find something where they are editing out aliens, ruins, unicorns or elves it would be substantial, but pasting in the LEM or an astronaut doesn't really denote any malicious or sinister intent. It is weird though...

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


I still maintain the "sun" is way too big.. Why would NASA want to tweak/edit/alter/etc the "sun" size? There would be no reason to do so..




This is not lens flare, not to say there isn't any lens flare in this photo, there is plenty.. but the sun itself when applied color correct has atypical luminosity and looks just like one giant spotlight! I have done color correct for all the good sized photos I could find from the Gemini, STS, ISS missions and none of them look like these sun of the Apollo...

So no matter how anyone puts it, the sun is not normal in these photos.. color correction proves that.. because again this only happens for Apollo photos and not any other space photos..

This is more dangerous a matter than just editing something, lightening is everything.. they had to get the lightening just right to simulate the real sun, this is why the sun you see is so unreasonably large.. when you fake the sun, you fake the light, when you fake the lightening you fake all elements in the photo, so these photos couldn't have been taken on the moon..

I challenge anyone (photographer or not) anywhere, to find any photography /original image on the internet (or elsewhere) that has the real "sun" looking like so below when color corrected:




It doesn't matter if it in on Earth, in space or any other NON-Apollo missions, find me ONE single photo of the sun (regardless of SIZE..) that when color corrected comes out looking like the one I show above...



[edit on 16-3-2010 by bochen181]



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by bochen181


It doesn't matter if it in on Earth, in space or any other NON-Apollo missions, find me ONE single photo of the sun (regardless of SIZE..) that when color corrected comes out looking like the one I show above...

Maybe one can't find a picture of the sun looking like that one above... because it doesn't look like that?

How about you find another picture where the sun looks like that.
Preferably one without the pixelation exhibited in your picture.

[edit on 3/16/2010 by abecedarian]



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by abecedarian

Originally posted by bochen181


It doesn't matter if it in on Earth, in space or any other NON-Apollo missions, find me ONE single photo of the sun (regardless of SIZE..) that when color corrected comes out looking like the one I show above...

Maybe one can't find a picture of the sun looking like that one above... because it doesn't look like that?

How about you find another picture where the sun looks like that.
Preferably one without the pixelation exhibited in your picture.

[edit on 3/16/2010 by abecedarian]


"when color corrected"

see tutorial I posted above on how to do the process...

I'll repeat it here again, this is what I am referring too:





[edit on 16-3-2010 by bochen181]



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by bochen181
 
You keep using that phrase, "color corrected". I don't think "color corrected" means what you think it means.

The sun isn't green. Don't you mean "color uncorrected"?


Oh, and by the way, you never posted a link that states the focal length of the lens in either the ISS or Moon photos. All you did was repost a link to the same photo as before, and then you typed what you think the focal length is in your own post.

EVIDENCE FAIL.



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 02:15 AM
link   
In the FOIA request you said you were only willing to pay a hundred bucks for the information. If you said you would pay a hundred thousand bucks, you would probably have that information right now.



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by bochen181
 

STS043-151-22
It's a low resolution image but the effect is the same.





[edit on 3/16/2010 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by bochen181





Is that for real?! I mean someone please comfort me because that is not right...I am not an expert in moon footage so it would be nice if Phage or someone could debunk it. Are those real photographs? If they are that is definitely an anomaly if I've ever seen one, nevermind the sun size anomaly.

Good thread either way, but holy # that is crazy I hope someone can explain that to me...




posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 02:29 AM
link   
reply to post by bochen181
 


That still looks like a photo of the sun, it just has a halo/lens flare around it. You can say its "just too big" all you want but that doesn't prove anything neither does the supposed "color correction"...

Are you suggesting this is an artificial light source and that the moon landing was a hoax? You are aware the moon landing hoax has been disproved by both science and logic right?



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 02:45 AM
link   
i could sit and watch this argument roll on and on and on....and on...

but i just get bored way too quickly.... so i'll tell you what!

*when the moon turns out to contain a hive of aliens insects that infest the people who step foot on the moon (like in species) i'll laugh at you guys>>>

and

*when the moon sprouts big # off thrusters and flys away into the abyss never to be heard of again i'll laugh at you guys



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 03:00 AM
link   
Being a professional photographer myself and having worked with Hasselblads a lot(pre digital age of course),I am also a fan of lens flare cause it can give a photo the extra kick or edge....I am still undecided about this one.The circle of the sun is too sharp and focused,it should be more like a blur meandering into flares.If you want to get the that sharp circular edge of the sun you have to use the smallest aperture possible,which of course would keep everything else in the dark.But then I never took a photo of the sun or a monumental spotlight, for that matter, on the moon.
Sorry for my confusing syntax but English is not my first language.



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by beebs
 

If you look at the full panorama with the LM in the distance you will notice several things.
www.hq.nasa.gov...

1) The floor of the valley is not flat.
2) The LM is in a slight depression in the terrain.
3) The location of the panorama is at a higher elevation than the LM

This panorama is taken from a location about 120 meters from the LM. The South Massif (the large mountain) is more than 10 km beyond the LM. So the apparent difference in the height of the mountain due to distance would only be about 1%.

When you realize that this panorama is taken from higher elevation than the other one it becomes clear that more of the lower levels of the South Massif (as well as the hills to the left) are visible. In the near panorama, the lower parts of the hills and mountain are hidden behind higher ground. It isn't that the Mountain is higher, it's just that we can see more of it.



[edit on 3/16/2010 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 03:21 AM
link   
There's not a shred of evidence suggesting the moon landings were a hoax, every single increasingly desperate put forward by the hoax camp has been thoroughly and conclusively debunked.

The 'evidence' put forward by the OP is among the weakest I have ever scoffed at. His case seems to based on nothing more than applying a few random Photoshop colour filters to a highly compressed jpeg.

Remember, to prove that the moon landings were faked, conspiracy theorists need to provide conclusive evidence that every single photo and all the footage from every moon landing was also faked.

It's funny that this absurd theory is still doing the rounds so many years after it has been thoroughly pulled apart.



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Thanks for the reply. I have to say that it makes sense what you say, as I live in Montana so I can relate to the mountainous 'optical illusions'.

Thanks for the reassurance haha. Now for this sun illusion that the OP is on about... It really is distressing for an amateur like myself when someone brings a topic like this to the table.

I cannot tell between the OP and the debunkers who is more experienced with camera specifications and photo analysis, etc.

Will be lurking to better inform my opinion...




posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 03:51 AM
link   
Anybody notice the crosshair markers on these pics?, all are normal apart from the ones covering the "sun" disc, there is an obvious reflection of the crosshairs, on all the photos.
It's easier to see through photoshop, darken image a little by playing with the levels, then invert image - very clear reflection.
Sorry, not sure how to post images here yet.



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 05:06 AM
link   
So I do feel the need to get in on this one. The jury is still out for me, but having found the abomination that is 9/11 i started looking deeper into other 'conspiracies' and 'hoaxes'.
Bottom line: there is no hard evidence either way. If there was a photo of an astronaut and/or lander on the moon with ANYTHING for perspective in the background - that would be absolute proof. The earth or even some stars in the same frame would be enough. But the lack of that makes me wonder....
Where is the crater under the lander? It looks pristine, alomst like the lander was put there by a crane rather than descending slowly held up by a rocket thruster.
This photo evidence seems to be yet more ammo for the hoax side, esp with NASA failing to provide under the FOIA.
With all the recent moon visits by unmanned craft with top notch photographic equipment, again there is no evidence of the landing sites (apart from a few pixels) so my jury is rapidly swinging to the disturbing conculsion that man has not walked on the moon.



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by bochen181
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.

So you tell us - you're making the claim, how big would the actual sun disk be, if properly resolved? Don't you know??? And is there any reason to suspect that you should be able to detect the true size of the Sun's disk in such overexposed images? For heaven's sake, try taking an earthbound photo at the same settings, and see how that all works for you, okay?

Someone's gotta say it. There has been a vast volume of error-ridden information posted here by the OP, and all of it demonstrates s/he hasn't the slightest bit of experience whatsoever in photography, let alone a basic understanding of light and shadow. Didn't even know the difference between zoom/focal length and focus???? Save me.

Anyway, just to pick on this post alone, what on earth is the purpose of comparing a panorama that does not include the sun in shot, to an image where the sun is COMPLETELY overexposed and blown to smithereens? Does he even know what 'blown' means, or what lens flare is? What point is he trying to make? Of course you can't tell what the size of the sun is by looking at an overexposed, flared out blob. (Ironically, as we know the lens focal length, we can indeed calculate what the actual size of the sun would be on that film frame, but of course that is a meaningless number in the context of this ridiculous rant - the solar disk cannot possibly be resolved at that exposure level. You would need MANY MANY stops of underexposure, probably with the help of an ND filter or similar.

Try this at home, folks, using the same exposure settings, and see what you get. Can you get anywhere near the correct size of the solar disk? (Don't point cameras at the Sun for more than a very short time, by the way..) Hint - it's easy back here on earth to see how big the solar disk should be, for a given camera and lens setting. Just go out at night and take a photo of the MOON, and compare it. But to do that properly you must use daylight exposure settings (and preferably manual focus set to infinity), or the Moon too will be blown out - it's BRIGHT. If you can't see any lunar details, then keep at it until you do. I'm happy to help with specific instructions if you tell me what camera you have.

Alternatively, go to your nearest hardware store and grab a grade 12 welders filter, and shoot through that.

All that will, of course, fly straight over the OP's head, I'm guessing..

To the guy/gal who had/has a Hass with a similar lens, why don't you show us what you get doing the same thing here on earth - same exposure settings, similar film, similar lens? Because without a very similar camera and lens, any uneducated guesses - especially made by those without a shred of photographic experience and zero supporting information - are completely worthless.


What a waste of bandwidth. But, OP, I'm sure you have given the NASA folk a good belly laugh, if you actually did lodge an FOI request (which, frankly, I doubt, but do post your receipts and proof..)


PS - In the OP, you will see that he claims a huge spotlight was used. Small problem. If that was the case, then every Apollo image would show a VERY OBVIOUS penumbra on every shadow. Go check the original film scans, and see if you can find any image whatsoever that shows penumbra. (The OP will now madly google penumbra..) The hotspots he incorrectly attributes to the 'very large light source' are caused by heiligenschein. The fact that he didn't understand his large light would actually cause penumbral effects is another indication of how incredibly little the OP knows about this topic.

PPS - The OP seems to think that a 70mm Hasselblad has a 70mm lens (it can, actually) - but the 70mm refers to the FILM FORMAT. He did get the right focal length for the lens used for those Apollo images (namely 60mm), but on the Shuttle and ISS, many different focal length lenses have been used - it's an interchangeable lens camera. If he cared to identify the 'comparative' images, we could tell him what lens was used for every one. Not that it would help his case - as pointed out laboriously, the fact the images are blown to all hell, means you cannot imply anything about the size of the Sun.



[edit on 16-3-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 07:15 AM
link   
I really enjoy threads like this. Stirs up your mind a bit. All i wanted to contribute by saying is I dnt care if someone on here is a photographer because have YOU personally gone into space and taken pictures?Have you gone to a environment that does not have atmosphere in which the difference in flim would be highly noticeable? No. End of story





new topics




 
46
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join