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

reply to post by Phage


Thanks Phage I was not aware they removed camera during EVA's. I've found that the camera had a min. focus distance of 12", so that seems reasonable. Thanks

Originally posted by Kailassa

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.

That wasn't the AGC (Apollo Guidance Computer) that was just Display and Keyboard Assembly (DSKY) which was the main interface the astronaughts used to control the Command/Service Module and the Lunar Module.



The real AGC itself was much larger:






And also on later Apollo missions they did in fact bring photos with them







[edit on 16-3-2010 by bochen181]

The case of the wrong sized scale-model flag being used.. (or "photoshopped" flag not quite to scale..)


Here are two photos comparing the size of the astronaughty to the size of the ladder, please keep this reference in mind..



history.nasa.gov... and history.nasa.gov...


Here the astronautys are coming down the ladder, slanted and at an angle, if they were standing up straight they would be even taller..


In the next two photos we see the US flag is obviously taller than the astronaut..




history.nasa.gov... and history.nasa.gov...


The photo on the left has the astronauty clearly standing in front of the flag, therefore he seems a bit taller than what he would actually be if he was standing besides the flag.. The photo on the right is more accurate, as it shows the astronaut standing besides the flag and he is visibly significantly shorter than the US flag.

Conrad is shorter than the US flag in AS12-47-6897; since the size of the fabric of the US flag should remain constant throughout all the Apollo missions then a longer flag pole in the flag from AS14-66-9276 means that the flag in AS14-66-9276 is actually significantly TALLER than even the flag in AS12-47-6897 (which itself is already taller than Conrad in that same photo!) This would have to be true in order for proportions to remain internally consistent..



Now someone explain to me THIS photo.. The astronauts would literally have to be midgets in order for the proportions to remain consistent throughout..





AS14-66-9276 - history.nasa.gov...



What's even weirder (if it could possibly get any more stranger than this) is not only is the flag in AS14-66-9276 way too small in scale when in comparison and in relative relation to the scale of the flag in all the other photos, but also I realized the flag pole in AS14-66-9276 is way longer than in the other reference photos.. So unless the US flag itself physical got smaller (I'm referring to the rectangular fabric portion here..)- and I'm not aware that ever happened - then why do we have a much longer flag pole in AS14-66-9276?


Yet another inexplicable issue comes up. Assuming that the US flag itself (the rectangular fabric portion) stayed consistent in size throughout all of this - the fact that the flag in AS14-66-9276 has a LONGER pole than the flags in all the other reference photos I linked to above also indicates that the flag in AS14-66-9276 should be EVEN STILL TALLER than all the other flags I demonstrated for reference purposes above! (for vertical-height-above-ground purposes it does not matter why the poles are taller, maybe they didn't dig it in as deep? but the FACT of height cannot be disputed! ) Since even those "shorter" flags are already well above the height of the astronauts, this makes the tiny size of the flag seen in AS14-66-9276 even more ludicrous and impossible.. !!!


[edit on 16-3-2010 by bochen181]

Someone needs to learn how to use "photoshop".. Though back in the 60s this was as "real as it gets" LMAO






And so.. after putting things into perspective using known information (ie the given assumption that the rectangular fabric portion of the US flag is assumed to be staying constant size throughout..) then we have the following:

In real-perspective terms, the "small flag" in AS14-66-9276 would (as a result of the much longer pole portion that is sticking out from under the ground) actually be much taller than our astronaut..





And thus, had our astronaut stood directly in line (or underneath) the flag in AS14-66-9276 he would be a very strange looking fellow.. (I think that's an understatement - lol)

I do realize that a Charles (Pete) Conrad at 5 feet 6½ is shorter than an Armstrong or Aldrin at 5' 11" and 5' 10", respectively. However in AS12-47-6897 and AS14-66-9276 there is only one astronaut in those photos (in fact AS14-66-9276 doesn't even have an astronaut in the scene) , and that is only Conrad himself! In those two photos I am not comparing Conrad's height to any other of the astronauts, I am comparing only Conrad to the flag and flag pole. (and also comparing one flag to another, and one flag's pole to another flag's pole) It shouldn't, and doesn't matter that I used flag photos from different Apollo missions. The flags were all the same size (the rectangular fabric portion) , so therefore since the flag pole in AS14-66-9276 is so much longer (when compared in proportion to the other flags that had shorter poles sticking out of the ground) than the one in AS12-47-6897, the height of the "tiny" flag in AS14-66-9276 would have been EVEN TALLER than Conrad in AS12-47-6897. After I rescale the flag to make them the same size, we see Conrad is significantly shorter than the flag in AS14-66-9276, but curiously the flag in AS14-66-9276 already seemed too short (even when in comparison to the LEM right beside it) to begin with.. So you end up with a midget Conrad.. The dude should be 5"6 or 5"7, not 3"1!

It is worth noting that Conrad is standing right besides the flag in AS12-47-6897, and when I repositioned him into perspective in AS14-66-9276 (to demonstrate the flag being too small) I have also positioned him right alongside the flag itself.. There is no mistake of perspective here. (not on my part at least)


And yet ironically, the flag in AS14-66-9276 is already too short and too small in relative comparison to the LEM standing right next to it in the same photo. Thus to remain internally consistent Conrad would have to be scaled down to the size of a midget.. Yet this is an obvious absurdity, thus this conclusively PROVES that NASA screwed up somewhere with the proportions/perspectives.. I don't even have to know the height of the astronauts, the size of the flags, the dimensional specs of the LEM (although I do know all of that..) these photos themselves are the contradiction and conclusively prove visually that NASA screwed up big time somewhere.. it doesn't even really matter how.. the fact remains that they faked something and whatever they did, the error is apparent and undeniable..

reply to post by bochen181

Now someone explain to me THIS photo.. The astronauts would literally have to be midgets in order for the proportions to remain consistent throughout..

Or the flag would have to be further from the LM than you think.
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...

[edit on 3/16/2010 by Phage]

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by bochen181

 

Now someone explain to me THIS photo.. The astronauts would literally have to be midgets in order for the proportions to remain consistent throughout..

Or the flag would have to be further from the LM than you think.
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...

Nevertheless still not far enough to place Conrad at 3" feet tall! This is just like the set of photos you came up with trying to demonstrate that the sun (spotlight) that I pointed out really isn't THAT HUGE because you found a couple of crudely taken low earth orbit in cabin photos of the sun apparently mid-sized.. with no reference to cropping, zoom levels, etc whatsoever.. I mean seriously?

I noticed another shadow issue..

I have cast some basic shadows in the 3d scene to match up with the photo with the LEM, astronaut and the US Flag. Then I rotated the camera01 around in the 3d scene to see if I could spot any major shadow inconsistencies when cross referencing with the Apollo photos.. and sure enough I quickly found at least one very obvious mistake/contradiction..

See how brightly light up this side of the hill/mountain facing is you shining?! There is no way the hill/mountain could be this bright, because the sun is (supposed to be) coming in from the other side!



history.nasa.gov...


Infact, if it was internally consistent, it SHOULD look very similar to something like this below:




I know how some of you may say, well Apollo 15 wasn't like Apollo 11 in that 15 had THREE EVAs and the astronaughties spent a total of about 2 d 18 h 54 m 53 s on the moon, so the sun could have changed sides/ went across to the other half of the sky/etc by then..

Actually, no it couldn't have..

That was my first thought initially as well. But to verify I loaded up OrbiterSim (it's not an astronomy software but for this purposes its more than accurate enough..) and landed at the exact coordinates of the Falcon's landing site, exact date and time, and put on time-compression 10000X and fast forwarded through the 2 days and 18 hours and some odd minutes..

You can feel free to try this yourself (with OrbiterSim or any other capable space simulator and/or astronomy software) the sun only changed a couple of degrees in those two days time and unlike on Earth during those two days at the 15 landing site at that exact date/time/year the angle of the sun hardly changed at all.. and most certainty couldn't have swept across the sky significantly enough to produce the lighting seen in AS15-88-11904!

Link to my customed packaged of free/opensource Orbitersim potable preinstalled: docs.google.com...

Nevertheless, even this photo right here :
history.nasa.gov... had shadows that matched up consistently with the rest of the Astronaut/LEM/USFLAG photos that I used to reference shadows and placement of the 3d "sun"..



AS15-88-11900 and AS15-88-11904 were taken just a few minutes apart, on the same EVA and the same roll of film. The major benefit of being able to render the landing site in 3d is that once you have aligned and placed the shadows where they are supposed to be (in according to the astronomical data and/or many reference photos) it becomes then very easy to notice any major inconsistencies or glaring mistakes in any of the rest of the photos..

Such is the case with AS15-88-11904..

The shadows in AS15-88-11900 (taken within minutes of AS15-88-11904) are consistent with that of AS15-88-11863 and also with astronomical data/ external reality/ etc.. However after I matched the backgrounds in correspondence with the 3d scene it became very obvious that the "sun" in AS15-88-11904 made a MAJOR position change.. That of course is a big no no, and I don't think I need to explain any further on this particular issue.

The astronaughties were very naughty indeed! Thanks for the one giant spotlight Buzz!

Nasa not responding to the FOIA from a potential lunatic who's doesn't know about overexposed lens flares. Sounds about right to me.... expect Nasa has more interesting projects that can't be put on hold every time the crazy guys call!

[edit on 16-3-2010 by john124]

Originally posted by john124
Nasa not responsing the FOIA from a lunatic who doesn't realise what a lens flare is. Sounds about right to me.... expect Nasa has more interested projects that can't be put on hold every time the crazy guys call!

Pray tell me, which part is the lens flare?






More interesting projects like what exactly? You mean like the Constellation? Oh wait, scratch that...



[edit on 16-3-2010 by bochen181]

I love the fact that in some of these pictures, there are no tire marks in the ground trailing the rover. You'd think they'd leave an impression with all of the dust like soil.

On top of that, since the moon "has no atmosphere" you'd think NASA would be smart enough to at least photoshop some stars in the sky, as they should be extremely bright, and numerous.

[edit on 16-3-2010 by daftxdirekt]

Originally posted by daftxdirekt
I love the fact that in most of these pictures, there are no tire marks in the ground trailing the rover.

On top of that, since the moon "has no atmosphere" you'd think NASA would be smart enough to at least photoshop some stars in the sky, as they should be extremely bright, and numerous.

Actually due to the "exposure" settings issue there would be no visual visible stars to the camera.. (the human eye however would have been able to detect the stars) So lack of stars is normal and to be expected..

About the issues with no rover tracks you are correct, I will update some photos in a moments.



[edit on 16-3-2010 by bochen181]

[edit on 16-3-2010 by bochen181]

reply to post by bochen181


Did you just guess where the Sun should be by looking at photos or did you find some data of where the Sun should be? I ask, because it sounds like you just tried to match them up with the photos, which can't be very accurate at all. Also you said:

...the sun only changed a couple of degrees in those two days time and unlike on Earth during those two days at the 15 landing site at that exact date/time/year the angle of the sun hardly changed at all..

That's not even remotely true. The Sun moved more than a couple degrees. At the start of the Stand up EVA the Sun was at 13 deg. and at the end of EVA 3 the Sun was at 44.3 deg. So the Sun moved a noticeable amount during the 66.9 hours they spent on the Moon.

Here's a link for the various Sun Angles for all the Apollo missions.

Originally posted by daftxdirekt
I love the fact that in some of these pictures, there are no tire marks in the ground trailing the rover. You'd think they'd leave an impression with all of the dust like soil.

On top of that, since the moon "has no atmosphere" you'd think NASA would be smart enough to at least photoshop some stars in the sky, as they should be extremely bright, and numerous.

[edit on 16-3-2010 by daftxdirekt]

edit/update:

this is just one of MANY, if you zoom in and examine closely the rover ain't leaving no tracks at all!

history.nasa.gov...

reply to post by jra


Right. Look at it this way:
The Moon takes 29.53 days for one rotation. That means it rotates about 1/2º each hour. It was 44 hours from the start of the first EVA to the start of the second. The Sun had to have moved 22º. To be a bit more accurate:

Apollo 15

* Landing: 104.75 GET
* SEVA
o Start: 106.75 GET, 13.0 deg.
o Finis: 107.25 GET, 13.3 deg.
* EVA-1
o Start: 119.75 GET, 19.6 deg.
o Finis: 126.25 GET, 22.9 deg.
* EVA-2
o Start: 142.25 GET, 31.0 deg
o Finis: 149.50 GET, 34.7 deg.
* EVA-3
o Start: 163.25 GET, 41.7 deg.
o Finis: 168.25 GET, 44.3 deg.

history.nasa.gov...


The photo of Mt. Hadley was taken at about 167:49. The sun was 44º above the horizon.
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Here is a assembled panorama which includes 11904. It can be seen that the sun is high and to the right. Just where it should be...because it was.

www.hq.nasa.gov...

(notice the tracks)

[edit on 3/16/2010 by Phage]

Originally posted by jra
reply to post by bochen181

 

Did you just guess where the Sun should be by looking at photos or did you find some data of where the Sun should be? I ask, because it sounds like you just tried to match them up with the photos, which can't be very accurate at all. Also you said:

...the sun only changed a couple of degrees in those two days time and unlike on Earth during those two days at the 15 landing site at that exact date/time/year the angle of the sun hardly changed at all..

That's not even remotely true. The Sun moved more than a couple degrees. At the start of the Stand up EVA the Sun was at 13 deg. and at the end of EVA 3 the Sun was at 44.3 deg. So the Sun moved a noticeable amount during the 66.9 hours they spent on the Moon.

Here's a link for the various Sun Angles for all the Apollo missions.

Did I just GUESS? Honestly, I find this question a little insulting.. Right.. I must have just guessed my way to the 3d models and meshes and just guessed up the geo terrain data set as well huh?

No I did not just guess. I already explained how I positioned the sun correct. I gave the duration of the EVA to reference an absolute MAXIMUM time range, not saying that was the time between shots, in fact those shots were taken barely hours apart, and surely not DAYS.

I already described how I came to the sun positions, I even uploaded the software : docs.google.com...
You can feel free to download and prove me wrong, but no guessing please.

reply to post by bochen181


Bochen: I would like to point out that the picture that the astronaut took seems to have a very curious aspect that has not been pointed out (on this post that I've read): that is that the astronaut seems to have a shadow that faces directly in front of him, while the spacecraft in the upper right hand corner has a shadow that is protruding to the left. Wouldn't the sun make all the shadows the same?

Now this could be caused by a wide angle lens. And to add more to the subject the moon has no atmosphere (naturally) so light acts a little differently on the moon than it does here on Earth, remember they were in a vacuum, that is freezing cold, and a horizon of roughly seven miles or so which can make the horizon appear a lot closer than it seems.

I'm not trying to debunk the story, simply trying to add some technical aspects to this ongoing story.
Nice pics though Bochen!

Originally posted by daftxdirekt
I love the fact that in some of these pictures, there are no tire marks in the ground trailing the rover. You'd think they'd leave an impression with all of the dust like soil.

On top of that, since the moon "has no atmosphere" you'd think NASA would be smart enough to at least photoshop some stars in the sky, as they should be extremely bright, and numerous.

[edit on 16-3-2010 by daftxdirekt]

Also,
Here is an image of what it looks like when the gear is fully unpacked..
history.nasa.gov...



So only question is, where did those tracks come from?
history.nasa.gov...


At the rate the debunking is going I wouldn't be surprised if someone told me they used star trek transported.. (only slightly facetious..)








[edit on 16-3-2010 by bochen181]

Originally posted by bochen181
this is just one of MANY, if you zoom in and examine closely the rover ain't leaving no tracks at all!

Tire tracks around the rover tend to get covered up by the astronauts themselves as they move and walk around the rover, getting various tools and equipment when they make there stops at the different geology stations.

If you just looked a few photos after the one you posted, you would have seen this one. AS15-88-11903. You can clearly see that the astronauts have disturbed the soil enough that it covered over the tracks near the rover.

Originally posted by bochen181
Did I just GUESS? Honestly, I find this question a little insulting.. Right.. I must have just guessed my way to the 3d models and meshes and just guessed up the geo terrain data set as well huh?

Calm down. I never said anything about the 3d terrain. But from the way you wrote your post, it sounded like you estimated the Sun angle. You didn't give any actual numbers for where you put your light source either.

[edit on 16-3-2010 by jra]

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by jra

 

Right. Look at it this way:
The Moon takes 29.53 days for one rotation. That means it rotates about 1/2º each hour. It was 44 hours from the start of the first EVA to the start of the second. The Sun had to have moved 22º. To be a bit more accurate:

Apollo 15

* Landing: 104.75 GET
* SEVA
o Start: 106.75 GET, 13.0 deg.
o Finis: 107.25 GET, 13.3 deg.
* EVA-1
o Start: 119.75 GET, 19.6 deg.
o Finis: 126.25 GET, 22.9 deg.
* EVA-2
o Start: 142.25 GET, 31.0 deg
o Finis: 149.50 GET, 34.7 deg.
* EVA-3
o Start: 163.25 GET, 41.7 deg.
o Finis: 168.25 GET, 44.3 deg.

history.nasa.gov...


The photo of Mt. Hadley was taken at about 167:49. The sun was 44º above the horizon.
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Here is a assembled panorama which includes 11904. It can be seen that the sun is high and to the right. Just where it should be...because it was.

www.hq.nasa.gov...

(notice the tracks)

[edit on 3/16/2010 by Phage]

Many of NASA's Apollo "panoramas" were not even taken at the same time, many were not even taken on the same roll of film.. These are taken out of time order and in some you can clearly see "multiple suns" (I'll find some to post to show what I'm talking about..) So you cannot use these "panorama" to prove where should have what shadow or not..

But speaking of such, we have much more advanced stitching software today..

Regardless of sun position, regardless of shadow, please explain away to me how something like THIS can be possible?




source photos:
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...

and also:


again sources:
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...



sources pan:
tops -> AS16-107-17431-9
bottoms -> AS16-113-18342-9



[edit on 16-3-2010 by bochen181]