The Lies In Your Visors

reply to post by LightSpeedDriver



Here is a nice link to give you an idea of how the focal length of the lens effects the view and how close/far objects in the background appear from the object actually focused on!

Someone posted this on another thread on here.

plus.google.com...

reply to post by LightSpeedDriver


Yes, what an incredibly good image!!

I LOVE that photo....and it just goes to prove again, the reality

Sorry, what was the "question" again???

reply to post by LightSpeedDriver



Here is a nice example of the sun in a picture.



Thats like the apollo 14 shot round not star like!

reply to post by wmd_2008

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Here is a nice example of the sun in a picture.



Thats like the apollo 14 shot round not star like!

That one isn't shot in space, so the light from the sun is far less powerful than in Space. the OP video was trying to say that there will be no spikes if the light spource is less powerful, like in that picture you just posted.

Originally posted by Pimander
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Here is a nice example of the sun in a picture.



Thats like the apollo 14 shot round not star like!

That one isn't shot in space, so the light from the sun is far less powerful than in Space. the OP video was trying to say that there will be no spikes if the light spource is less powerful, like in that picture you just posted.

edit on 14/12/11 by Pimander because: add quote

edit on 14/12/11 by Pimander because: (no reason given)

Well first of all it was shown to compare to the Apollo 14 shot on the surface of the moon with the sun behind it (shown in the video the OP posted) were the sun does not have any spikes of light like a star!



Second if you bother to check photographic exposure for the moon surface and the earth on a sunny day they are almost identical

reply to post by ProudBird

The point of posting that photo of Buzz is to show how well the visors reflected even in the early missions and the quality of the film stock and camera they were using, nothing more. As far as I can see there is no direct Sun reflection visible. If you have forgotten the question I will repeat it again.

Why are the reflections of the Sun in some of the NASA photographs anomalous or not consistent with what we know the Sun to look like from space when viewed through a camera lens?

reply to post by wmd_2008

Again, why are there no spokes visible at all? It is a simple question, surely? I am not debating whether or not they went to the Moon although I can understand why some might think that, I am asking why there are inconsistencies in the official photographs.


reply to post by wmd_2008


As the poster underneath you points out, your photo is taken on earth and does not count, as far as I can see. I can't imagine that someone in a bulky spacesuit will have time to "get creative" with camera settings. Apparently they suffered from very sore hands and had little dexterity due to the pressure of the spacesuits. I would think it was a simple point and click scenario trying to capture as much of the reality and wondrousness of the things they were photographing.

reply to post by LightSpeedDriver


Well what photographic experience do you have my first SLR was bought in 1979 manual focus, manual exposure the best way to learn, exposure settings on the moon surface are the same as the earth on a sunny day look up the suuny 16 rule tell you what let me do it for you.

en.wikipedia.org...

As for focus they used depth of field why dont you look that up tell you what let me

www.cambridgeincolour.com...

It's simple when you KNOW HOW!

They didn't have to mess about with settings very often they did have bad shots as well they are on the NASA site for you to look at THAT ONE YOU CAN DO YOURSELF!

Originally posted by wmd_2008

That one isn't shot in space, so the light from the sun is far less powerful than in Space. the OP video was trying to say that there will be no spikes if the light spource is less powerful, like in that picture you just posted.

Well first of all it was shown to compare to the Apollo 14 shot on the surface of the moon with the sun behind it (shown in the video the OP posted) were the sun does not have any spikes of light like a star!



Second if you bother to check photographic exposure for the moon surface and the earth on a sunny day they are almost identical

The surface of the Moon isn't in space - it's on the surface of the Moon. If that one isn't really on the Moon then it just proves the OP video right as well.

Originally posted by Pimander

Originally posted by wmd_2008

That one isn't shot in space, so the light from the sun is far less powerful than in Space. the OP video was trying to say that there will be no spikes if the light spource is less powerful, like in that picture you just posted.

Well first of all it was shown to compare to the Apollo 14 shot on the surface of the moon with the sun behind it (shown in the video the OP posted) were the sun does not have any spikes of light like a star


Second if you bother to check photographic exposure for the moon surface and the earth on a sunny day they are almost identical

The surface of the Moon isn't in space - it's on the surface of the Moon.

I don't believe you just wrote that vacuum in space vacuum on the moon's surface anything else you are not sure about just ask!

I don't think it has been mentioned,but if so, I missed it and apologize.

There is a LOT of dust on the moon, it was a big problem for the astronauts. The dust got onto (and into) their equipment, and they often had to brush off the dust from their visors during EVAs. Because the lunar dust has a lot of really sharp particles, the dust scratched their visors badly, and I would think that a visor with scratches and/or lunar dust on it, would not reflect light points the same way a completely clean and scratch free visor does.

Just a thought, and I may of course be wrong.

reply to post by InsideOfItAll

You raise a valid point but I can't remember seeing one with a dusty visor. I remember reading they said the dust did indeed get everywhere but again, I have yet to see one with clouded up visors or scratched visors. The images in the posted film do not show that though so I think that can be discounted as a source of anomalous reflections, at least in this case.

reply to post by LightSpeedDriver


The number of points on the light source will vary with the aperture and lens design and as shown sometimes you won't have any.

The guys who made the YouTube video you linked to don't know enough about photography!!!

reply to post by wmd_2008

Personally I still don't think that explains it adequately. Its just my opinion though. I am not convinced of any of the evidence to the contrary that ha so far been presented. Oh well.

The first picture on your video which shows the sun viewed from the moon, reminds me of this:
(lunar halo, the moon)

and this:
(solar halo, the sun)

This happens under certain atmospheric conditions, humidity, moisture, fog, etc... i would also guess dust would create the same effect. These supposedly happen after earthquakes or volcanic eruptions, at least it has been reported... especially in the case of the sun. Assuming dust and small debris that can float in the atmosphere shortly after, similar as it would on the moon all the time (in the case of your first photo in the video). The lunar halo isn't necessarily related to dust on the earth, but more or less atmospheric conditions as i wrote above.

I believe the sun in the astronaut photos where they are standing on the moon, is "different" because of dust floating about on the lunar surface. Because the moon doesn't have an atmosphere like the earth, the sun will look different more often, including glare, refraction, and artifacts (such as halo's).

This is the only one i am able to explain, but other photo's are interesting and i have wondered about some of them before.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

I don't believe you just wrote that vacuum in space vacuum on the moon's surface anything else you are not sure about just ask!

Is that supposed to be English?

First of all I was taking the proverbial. If you don't have a sense of humour, you probably don't have any sense at all.

Secondly the lunar surface is not a vacuum which possibly explains the halo but may mean it isn't taken on the Moon at all. Low Earth orbit is also not a perfect vacuum either for that matter.

The Lunar Atmospheric Composition Experiment was deployed on Apollo 17. It was a mass spectrometer that measured the composition of the lunar atmosphere. On earlier missions, only the total abundance of the lunar atmosphere was measured by the Cold Cathode Gauge. The three primary gases in the lunar atmosphere are neon, helium, and hydrogen, in roughly equal amounts. Small amounts of methane, carbon dioxide, ammonia, and water were also detected. In addition, argon-40 was detected, and its abundance increased at times of high seismic activity. Argon-40 is produced by the radioactive decay of potassium-40 in the lunar interior, and the seismic activity may have allowed escape of argon from the interior to the surface along newly created fractures.

Source: www.lpi.usra.edu...


Thirdly, you produced an image allegedly on the Moon with what is allegedly the sun without Spikes. That is precisely what the OP video is saying is suspicious (as it alleges that means it may not be the Moon). You also produced one with the Sun on Earth without spikes which neither confirmed or disproved the OP videos point.

I was taking the proverbial because you were posting images and pretending they meant the OP videos point was invalid - which they did not.

The makers of the video may or may not know enough about photography but I don't accept your explanations so far. I am no expert on photography or image analysis and it may just be that you are absolutely right and your explanations are rubbish. However....

"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself." -- Albert Einstein

reply to post by Pimander


This is a bit of an overstatement, and subject to interpretation:

Secondly the lunar surface is not a vacuum.

Your source merely refers to the Apollo 17 experiment that determined VERY TINY amounts of trace molecules of certain elements.

For all intents and purposes, the Lunar environment IS a ''vacuum', just as is LEO. So, quibbling over the "perfectness" of the vacuum, in terms of how utterly devoid it might be of ALL material is disingenuous at best. For that matter, there exists countless regions of even deep space that contain dust, and gases et cetera....else, stars and planetary systems wold never continue to be 'born' in the Universe.

Perhaps this mistake was not intentional, but only owed its being posted due to a misunderstanding of the source? (Doubtful to my mind, since most search engines bring the follow link first...so, using the Apollo 17 article seems to have been a form of "cherry-picking", perhaps?

Here is another take on it, which describes my point:

For most practical purposes, the Moon is considered to be surrounded by vacuum.

Atmosphere of the Moon (from Wiki)


On the same search results page, just one more source for confirmation:

Although it is commonly understood that the moon has no atmosphere, it does in fact have an extremely tenuous one made up of captured solar wind molocules and out-gassings from radioactive lunar rock. The atmosphere is so thin, that if it were compressed to the same temperature and density as the earth’s, it would fit into a 210 foot cube.

ALL of the Moon's "atmosphere" could be boxed into a cube about 210 feet on each side.....and remain at the pressure and density as what we're used to.

The Lunar Atmosphere

reply to post by ProudBird

I'm well aware that what you are saying is what is widely thought to be the situation regarding the Lunar atmosphere. Of course I picked a quote that strongly backed up what I was saying. I'm not likely to do anything else am I?

I'm still correct though.

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver
reply to post by InsideOfItAll

 

You raise a valid point but I can't remember seeing one with a dusty visor. I remember reading they said the dust did indeed get everywhere but again, I have yet to see one with clouded up visors or scratched visors.

This is a photo of Apollo 17 astronaut Jack Schmitt during EVA 2 (AS17-134-20472), and his gold visor seems to be dusty:


In this photo (AS17-134-20471) taken a few moments before, he has raised his gold visor is raised in order to see better, both Schmitt and Gene Cernan did this several times during the Apollo 17 EVAs:


Both photos can be found here:
next.nasa.gov...



These are links to three photos of Jack Schmitt's helmit with the gold visor down. (These photos were taken in 2004 at the National Air and Space Museum's Garber Facility, where Jack Schmitt's space suit is preserved.) In all these three photos you can see that the gold visor is scratched from repeatedly wiping or brushing off dust during the EVAs, and that the scratches distorts the reflection of a light source.








All three photos can be found here:
next.nasa.gov...

reply to post by InsideOfItAll

Thanks for posting and I agree, in both your shots the dust is quite clearly visible. In the shots used in the youtube video, I see no evidence of dust at all. With that much dust, I am sure the sun would barely reflect at all but again, in the shots used in the video, the reflection seems very well detailed leading me to conclude that dust is not the cause.

ETA Just noticed your scratched visor shots. I went back and watched the film again full screen looking for evidence of scratching but cannot see it. The other reflections seem fairly well defined. I can't imagine that the place where the sun is reflecting is the only part of the visor scratched. The chances of that happening would seem astronomical.