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

Originally posted by highlyoriginal
I didn't read through the whole thread, so I apologize if this has been posted, but here is a great website someone shared here on ATS awhile back that talk about the cameras (in full detail) and show the pictures from the moon landing, and basically prove that they are fake.

You can check the website out here:
Fake Moon Landing Photos

This site is a poorly cobbled together, semi-literate heap of BS which proves absolutely nothing, everything on there has already been comprehensively debunked on a number of occasions. Only the incredibly gullible would regard anything on here as credible.

Originally posted by aik4on
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.

Here is an old NASA Jul 18, 19, & 20 film reel marked "..not for general public distribution"... that shows some video / image manipulation. While in earth orbit they claim on radio transmissions to be achieving lunar orbit.

www.livevideo.com...

reply to post by Bigfoot73

On the right track glad to see someone sees through the bs

Apollo Fiber Optics TechnologyApollo 11's TV Camera - the FIBER OPTIC LIE!



www.thelivingmoon.com...

reply to post by GovtFlu


Oh, no! NOt again!

That is the worst piece of garbage "movie"....it calls itself a 'documentary', but doesn't qualify to that standard.

Oh, BTW....the red graphic "Not For Public Distribution"? Cut in by the person who made that video for uploading to the Web. The British narration is from another film, forget which....and EVERYTHING she alleges is utter nonsense. This has been totally debunked for many years, now.

reply to post by blankduck18


So what?

Fibre-optics were cutting edge technology, still a secret in 1968? And this proves what, exactly? Oh, that fibre-optics were cutting edge technolgy and still secret...at the height of the COLD WAR!

Yeah, thanks 'LunaCognita'...for showing us nothing related to "fake" Moon landings!

("LunaCognita" is the YouTube username associated with that flick).

reply to post by weedwhacker


Maybe you should do yourself a favour and read some books that would help you deal with that superiority complex you have.

I'm as entitled to voice my opinion here as you are.

It may be "just an idea" but it's an idea based on common sense, especially given the USA's history of controlling information and the media.

Your 'recommendations' about reading material have nothing to do with my post. Did you fail to notice that I said

I think the "Moon Landing" that the world saw could well have been faked but that doesn't mean the US didn't put men on the Moon

I'm not, like a lot of hoax believers, saying that they faked it because they couldn't actually do it. I'm saying they might have faked it simply to make sure the public did not see something they didn't want them to see. That is all.

Get off your high horse.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Are you that dense? it means there are much better quality pictures that have not been released



[edit on 16-3-2010 by blankduck18]

To answer in detail the sun shot issues that the OP has, here's the answer from the manufacturers of the camera:

The effect you can see is caused by interference from the reseau plate. The image of the sun on the film is partly reflected and acts as a secondary strong light source. The reseau plate is a 4 mm thick glass plate and the distance between the surface facing the film and the film itself is around 0.1 mm in outer areas (less in center areas).

"The strong light reflected from the film is reflected again from the reseau plate surfaces. Due to glass reflection properties (total reflection at larger incidence angles), the radius of corresponding "halo" is maximum around 7-8 mm."

[edit on 16-3-2010 by aik4on]

reply to post by blankduck18


Ummmm......the fibre-optics were in the video cameras (but obviously not in all, since the camera mounted on the Lander to show the ladder and the Astronauts coming down was a fairly last-minute after thought, and the qulaity shows).


ALSO, the technology of actually acquiring the images, compared to what we have today with modern CCD, was very poor. Fibre-optics, or not...plus, it still had to be transmitted via radio (EM spectrum).

So, no...I'm not dense.

And YES, we do have stunningly sharp images from Apollo...on FILM!

reply to post by weedwhacker


Your response shows how dense you are with history technology
And to think that everything would have been sent over radio air waves have you ever heard of something called a hard drive?

reply to post by blankduck18

You find it surprising that there was classified technology used during the height of the cold war? Why?

I don't see much of a "gotcha" here (or any lies). The camera used was not "off the shelf" at all.

And to make the hand even more attractive, Westinghouse had created a very special television camera pickup tube; one that could run circles around conventional image orthicons and vidicons in terms of size, sensitivity, S/N and lag. This was the secondary electron conduction, or SEC, tube. It had an outstanding dynamic range and was so sensitive that, without stretching the truth too much, it could make pictures of the proverbial black cat in a coal bin at midnight.

www.tvtechnology.com...

As it turns out the classified portion of the camera was the faceplate for the electron tube. It was something that Westinghouse had been working on for the military. The public patent was filed in 1969, a few months after the landing.
www.freepatentsonline.com...

[edit on 3/16/2010 by Phage]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by GovtFlu

 

Oh, no! NOt again!

That is the worst piece of garbage "movie"....it calls itself a 'documentary', but doesn't qualify to that standard.

Oh, BTW....the red graphic "Not For Public Distribution"? Cut in by the person who made that video for uploading to the Web. The British narration is from another film, forget which....and EVERYTHING she alleges is utter nonsense. This has been totally debunked for many years, now.

You were there when that was "cut in".. who was it?

I suppose the audio of them claiming to be some 130,000 miles away, while they were actually in low earth orbit.. is faked as well... was this another editing trick you witnessed?

Oh yea, you were not there and are assuming.

There is a different video out there where the reporter who found the video, in a mis-labeled box, discusses how he found it and where.. but you can find that yourself. It might be at moonmovie.com.

Review ALL the available information for yourself and this "lost" NASA footage will make more sense... or not, trust & believe a govt known to mislead & lie.. please do, I WANT you & everyone here to trust the govt.. they'd never lie to you.

reply to post by GovtFlu

Here's another "secret" tape. Well, Bart Sibrel wishes it were secret.
Fake Earth...right.


lokishammer.dragon-rider.org...

BTW, that mysterious "third party"? That's Goldstone, the station which was receiving the live TV transmissions from the spacecraft.

[edit on 3/16/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by bochen181


You don't know what a lens flare is and you don't know what an FOIA request is for, so why would they not ignore you? Seems obvious.

Start here and then do a Google Search.

reply to post by weedwhacker


I read alot of your posts and I am intrigued as to why you defend NASA so vehemently all the time. Can I ask you personally if you believe in the fact that other civilisations could exist and that they could be monitoring this planet? if so could there not be a strong possibility that NASA would know about it?



[edit on 16-3-2010 by franspeakfree]

Originally posted by sotp


I'm as entitled to voice my opinion here as you are.

Yes but you should also be prepared to have that opinion mocked when it's based on no firm evidence than your own imagination.

I'm not, like a lot of hoax believers, saying that they faked it because they couldn't actually do it. I'm saying they might have faked it simply to make sure the public did not see something they didn't want them to see. That is all.

And there might be a shapeshifting invisible elf living in my potting shed but there's no actual evidence to suggest there is.

Your 'idea' is just as much tinfoil hat territory as the 'we never went to the moon' brigade.

Show me any credible, scientific evidence that supports your claim and I mean scientific, not some rambling conspiracy crapola website or YouTube homebrew video compilation.

I understand the controversy about the moon landing and all, and while these pictures are cool...I don't think they show anything spectacular. I am also willing to believe it is possible that the whole thing was faked. However...isn't it much more likely that the videos/images were made after the fact to make up for some kind of screw up (errr...technical difficulty) to avoid embarrassment?

Originally posted by CHRLZ


No, of course not. But do keep it up - don't let lack of knowledge stop you from proving it, with posts like that one.

Get an education on the topic to avoid future embarrassment, eg:
www.clavius.org...
www.braeunig.us...
and how about sticking to the topic of the OP? If you want to make some 'new' (but long debunked) unrelated claim, start your own thread, be brave.

Whether or not clavius.org is a disinformation site or not I truly don't know so am not prepared to say either way.. However I do know that this site is sorely misinformed and can't even get simple facts straight..



Just to give you one example:
www.clavius.org...

On that page it has a "conspiracy nut" asking the valid question: "The "falloff" around Aldrin -- especially at the horizon -- 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. [Mary Bennett, David Percy, et al.]"



Figure1


Figure3


and follows with this debunking/disinfo:

"Light intensity is governed by an inverse square law, meaning the intensity decreases according to the square of the increase in distance away from the light -- if you double the distance, the light is only one-fourth as bright. For nearby lights such as street lamps, this is significant. For faraway lights like the sun, the difference in distance across a parking lot is inconsequential compared to the distance between the sun and the entire parking lot.

But the inverse square law is not the only law at work in these pictures. And the amount of light arriving per unit area does not universally determine the brightness of any particular spot in a photograph of that area.

The amount of light a surface receives from the sun depends on the angle at which it receives it. Textured surfaces such as the lunar surface in this photo are composed of thousands of small facets, each facing a slightly different direction with respect to the sun and each therefore receiving a different amount of sunlight. This isn't true in the parking lot example, but it's the case here.

Because the moon is smaller than Earth, the surface curves away faster at the horizon. The surface is literally falling away from the photographer in Fig. 1. This decreases the illumination angle for the whole surface in general, not just the individual texture facets.

In Figs. 1 and 3 the camera is looking generally into the sun. That means it's seeing the shaded side of texture elements (little hills, rocks, etc.) that are obviously much darker than the sunlit sides. When you look into the sun, and the sun is at a low angle, surface texture looks dark because you're seeing the cumulative effect of all those shaded texture facets.

When you look in the same direction as the sun's rays travel, you see only the lighted portions of these texture elements. The shaded portions are facing away from you, and the texture elements are hiding their own shadows. This presents the illusion of a uniformly bright surface (Fig. 4).

We can verify this on Earth. "

Then it goes on to say:

While in the Apollo photograph the surface is bright all the way to the horizon (and in fact is brighter at the horizon because of the lighting phase angle we have just explained), the scene lit with the artificial light is dimmest at the horizon.

and then:



[edit on 16-3-2010 by bochen181]

Originally posted by CHRLZ

No, of course not. But do keep it up - don't let lack of knowledge stop you from proving it, with posts like that one.

Get an education on the topic to avoid future embarrassment, eg:
www.clavius.org...
www.braeunig.us...
and how about sticking to the topic of the OP? If you want to make some 'new' (but long debunked) unrelated claim, start your own thread, be brave.

Continued from post above:

and then:

"We still have not explained the extraordinary bright pool of light behind Aldrin in Fig. 1. This is an area that was swept by the LM's exhaust as it landed. Aldrin reported a few seconds before touchdown that the LM was "drifting to the right a little," and Armstrong overcorrected by sliding the LM sideways to the left. It was moving leftward and slightly forward when it struck the ground. The bright spot in Figs. 1 and 3 are where the exhaust plume erased some of the texture elements and smoothed out the surface. "


Right...



history.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by blankduck18

Your response shows how dense you are with history technology
And to think that everything would have been sent over radio air waves have you ever heard of something called a hard drive?

Speaking about dense with history technology . . .


This is the Guidance Computer used in Apollo 11.

It was the size of a shoebox.
It contained a small eraseable area of about 2K of 14-bit words to temporarily store variables in. This area was used for computations, and could not be used for long-term data storage.
It also had read-only storage of 36k.
The landing module had a computer exactly the same.

www.njnnetwork.com...
www.downloadsquad.com...

Having completed its job by returning the astronauts to the Command/Service Module (the Apollo craft,), the Lunar Module was separated and sent into solar orbit or to crash into the Moon.

en.wikipedia.org...

So not only was there no space for storing even one large photograph, let alone a film, but the computer available on the moon never came back to Earth.