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

Originally posted by harrytuttle

Look at this color correct composite of images carefully, can you really say focus lenses can explain away all the other anomalies present in these image?

You don't understand. It's not the "focus". It's "focal length". Not only do you not understand what I'm saying, you don't even know what you are talking about.

As for the other "anomalies", I have no idea what you are talking about. Passing images through photoshop's filters to make them look weird (green, high contrast ratio) isn't revealing anything useful at all. I could pass a photo of Barack Obama through photoshop filters to make him look like an alien, but that doesn't mean he's an alien.

You are totally missing it dude, he is talking about the filter that reveals the shape of the lightsource. In the real sun images it shows the lightsource shape. it reveals a lot about the light source, in the pictures that are suspect it reveals what looks like an artifical light and a reflective background behind the light bulb. It is you who are totally missing it and ignoring that because you don't want to allow any possibility of those moon pics being found to be hoaxed. But that isn't the point at all, the point is the shape of the lightsource differences being revelaed by the images shown all through the same filter.
You are the one that doesn't know what you are talking about

reply to post by bochen181
Regardless of you being wrong about the Sun angles. You can easily find the frames used for the panoramas and when they were taken. I already provided the link but here it is again.

Dave's VIP Site pan consists of frames AS15-88- 11895 to 11925 (assembled by Dave Byrne).

www.hq.nasa.gov...


How those panoramas be possible? They can't. They are deceptively assembled.
For example, here is what the low hills and "shoulder" of the South Massif look like from the LM. [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5817b8d94100.png[/atsimg]

Here is what they look like from Tracey's Rock.[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/edca16fb8102.png[/atsimg]

They do not match. The images are obviously taken from different locations, elevations, and perspectives.

You are correct, the FOREground don't match.. That's exactly what I've been trying to say.. It is the background that matches precisely.. The mountains, and boulders, and everything that needs to match up to prove foul play on NASA's part DO precisely indeed match up in the composite and source photos I linked to.

Why have you nothing to say about this one?



I demonstrated before that these markers (I highlighted them for easier identification, but see source photos for yourself..) prove the two mountains are the same in the prop stage..


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

Foregrounds have changed BACKDROPS are being shamelessly reused..

This technology was perfected back in the late 60's called Front Screen Projection





Plenty of more examples at the website : jayweidner.com...



jayweidner.com...
jayweidner.com...
jayweidner.com...
jayweidner.com...
jayweidner.com...





[edit on 16-3-2010 by bochen181]

[edit on 16-3-2010 by bochen181]

Originally posted by bochen181
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..

I believe you are mistaken on that. All the Apollo panorama's that I've seen were assembled with photos that were taken one after the other. Never in all the years that I've been studying the Apollo missions have I ever seen panorama's assembled like the ones you've shown.

If you go to the Lunar and Planetary Institute. They have a section for all the Apollo panoramic photos. None of them have been assembled in the manner that you have shown. They are all put together by photos taken consecutively.

Originally posted by cushycrux
Explain this then please

Small

Bigger

Biggest

My God... there's only one possibility... the sun is... GROWING.

Where to start....?

Bochen.. seriously, when you are out of your depth, it is best to not swim deeper. For now, I'll mainly deal with one post, from a few pages back. You quoted an awful lot of text from clavius.org about heiligenschein ('h-s' to save time) and said it was wrong. But I don't know if anyone else noticed a small issue - you didn't quite manage to say why.

Now given h-s is a phenomenon that most *observant* folk will have seen before, like when walking in wet grass away from a low sun and looking at your shadow:
www.wwu.edu...
or from a plane:
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
..your rather silly dismissal looks like.. a rather silly dismissal. The reflective effect can be verified from geological studies of the lunar regolith - the tiny-reflective-bead-like behavior is caused by the chemical composition of the dust and the lack of earthly weathering influences like wind and water.

Tally up another couple of things you haven't a clue about.

And don't you understand that the light reflection angle at the horizon will be greater for an image when the camera is pointed down, than one where it is held horizontal? Hence the 'brighter horizon' comment that specifically referred to the image where the camera was pointed down? Your deliberate omission of that image and the fact that you quoted out of context is unsurprising, given what precedes and follows it.

It is either deliberate deceit.. or basic geometry is another thing you haven't a clue about. Which?

Anyway, I'm getting sick of the stupid scattergun posts. S/he is simply repeating long debunked garbage over and over, or revealing how badly s/he understands photogrammetry, in combination with some of the worst observation skills I have ever seen. (Deliberate, perhaps?) Frankly, his/her pseudo-analyses are just getting more ridiculous by the minute. I'm sure some folk are impressed, but there will always be the terminally gullible...

If someone other than s/he wishes to take up any of these causes, and is particularly swayed by an 'argument' and can show some decent analytical skills to support it, I may get interested again.

Hang on to your fantasy, bochen. The real world has moved on.

I LOVED the one where you couldn't tell the difference between the front, back and sides of the LM. You're really way good at this analysizising stuff, hey..?

I noticed one thing bochen got right - the exposure settings meaning that no stars were visible in the images. BRAVO!!! I'm astonished. (Interestingly, Venus can just be detected in a couple of images, but that's another story..)


By the way, bochen, here's a SPECIFIC CHALLENGE FOR YOU.

Let's go right back to the original post, where you LOUDLY proclaimed (and have several times since) that a very large spotlight was the source of the light. I quote:

One Giant Spotlight for Mankind! .... a very large light source would have been necessary

As you would know, such a spotlight would cause ALL shadows to have a penumbra. Shall I draw you a diagram? (I truly hope that isn't required..) Now, can you please show me an original Apollo film scan showing a shadow with a penumbra?

Alternatively, can you explain the physics/optics that has allowed this alleged large spotlight to behave in this non-penumbra-inducing way, never seen before or since?

Thanks.

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by bochen181
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..

I believe you are mistaken on that. All the Apollo panorama's that I've seen were assembled with photos that were taken one after the other. Never in all the years that I've been studying the Apollo missions have I ever seen panorama's assembled like the ones you've shown.

If you go to the Lunar and Planetary Institute. They have a section for all the Apollo panoramic photos. None of them have been assembled in the manner that you have shown. They are all put together by photos taken consecutively.

Here is a picture of a panorama, I recall seeing a panorama with 2 suns (actually several) when I find them I'll post them here..

Remember the original point I was trying to make was they messed up on the shadow casting.. Do you want to conduct shadow investigations using panoramas like this below? I wouldn't..

Originally posted by CHRLZ
Where to start....?

Bochen.. seriously, when you are out of your depth, it is best to not swim deeper. For now, I'll mainly deal with one post, from a few pages back. You quoted an awful lot of text from clavius.org about heiligenschein ('h-s' to save time) and said it was wrong. But I don't know if anyone else noticed a small issue - you didn't quite manage to say why.

......

Quite a lot of empty rhetoric.. unfortunately you have used a lot of flowery words to state very little of substance, personal attacks typical end up that way.

You know the post way up there where I debunked your debunking with regards to you alleging that www.clavius.org... is a "knowledge site" and belittling everyone who questioned the official story? Well, why don't you start by making counter arguments to my debunking of the debunking?!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

BTW I posted this challenge from the very beginning and so far no one has been able to face the issue head on?


""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... ""



www.abovetopsecret.com...

So next time before you start off resorting to disparagements without even reading through the posts and telling everyone that doesn't agree with you to " Get an education" how bout you get one first and then start disputing the facts and actually debating the issue at hand instead of restoring to empty rhetoric and strawman attacks?

Thank you.



[edit on 17-3-2010 by bochen181]

[edit on 17-3-2010 by bochen181]

reply to post by bochen181


No.

The backgrounds don't match either. The "shoulder" of the South Massif and the hills to the left are different in each photo. Because they are taken from different locations. [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5817b8d94100.png[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/edca16fb8102.png[/atsimg]


[edit on 3/17/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by bochen181

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/100f7d703b70.png[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d9c5aec2b8ab.png[/atsimg]

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by bochen181

 

No.

The backgrounds don't match either. The "shoulder" of the South Massif and the hills to the left are different in each photo. Because they are taken from different locations. [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5817b8d94100.png[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/edca16fb8102.png[/atsimg]


[edit on 3/17/2010 by Phage]

You are correct, my mistake, this one should not be included.. The other two (of my earlier post) I have verified do match up nearly perfectly.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by bochen181

 

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/100f7d703b70.png[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d9c5aec2b8ab.png[/atsimg]

Come on now?! This is like an ugly duckingly trying to pass for a pretty swan.. Really you don't think this can compare to THIS do you?




I mean, are you for real?

reply to post by bochen181

The original is low resolution. It displays the same basic properties you are talking about.

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by bochen181
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..

I believe you are mistaken on that. All the Apollo panorama's that I've seen were assembled with photos that were taken one after the other. Never in all the years that I've been studying the Apollo missions have I ever seen panorama's assembled like the ones you've shown.

If you go to the Lunar and Planetary Institute. They have a section for all the Apollo panoramic photos. None of them have been assembled in the manner that you have shown. They are all put together by photos taken consecutively.

Quite right, jra. Of course, NASA, as would any REAL researcher, only use images that actually belong together. Just because you can roughly line up one side of a hill against another (by suitably cropping and in some cases, resizing - aka 'cheating'), doesn't mean you should, and then expect to be taken seriously...

In fact, I would call that deliberate deceit. The entire LIE being pushed by the hoax-believers is dealt with in detail here:

www.braeunig.us...

PS - these deceitful images come from the completely debunked and ridiculed Jack White website. Anyone with a glimmer of photography experience will see that Jack's 'work' is unmitigated and deliberately misleading garbage of the lowest order.

It just goes to show that just because you found it on the Internet, doesn't mean it is right. To bochen, however, you can just copy and paste anything you find, and then move quickly onto the next one (for very obvious reasons)..

I trust discerning folk are noticing how he doesn't stop to debate? How he pretends he doesn't hear questions he can't answer?

You're like a diamond, bochen. Totally flippin' transparent.

Rocks lighted from different directions!


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







In these two consecutive Apollo 17 photos, the lighting on the LRV TV camera is almost identical, but the lighting on the background rocks changed nearly 180%. The shadow of the dish antenna gets smaller and changes position.

Gots more than umbra, penumbra and antumbra to worry about!


[edit on 17-3-2010 by bochen181]

reply to post by bochen181

The others match "nearly" perfectly because they are taken from relatively close to each other and looking in the same direction.

11057 was taken from the ALSEP site which was located at Station 8, 110 meters north-northwest of the LM. The valley to the right of Hadley Delta is about 15 km south-southeast of the LM. There would be a perspective distance of less than 1% in the background. "Nearly" none.

CHRLZ,

Kettle calling pot black. You try to side step the issue at hand by off-handedly passing off a disinformation site like www.clavius.org... or www.braeunig.us... and tersely including a link for us to "re-educate (y)ourselfs" so as to avoid "future embarrassment" and to "best to not swim deeper" when we are "out of your [our] depth"

If this is your way of discouraging me from posting the truth and exposing the lies then let me be the first to tell you it is most decidedly NOT very effective..

Supreme irony is you turn around and accuse me of plagiarizing from some other site, so I supposed I should just post disinformation links tagged along with disparaging belittling dismissive comments and call it a day huh? Why are you even on a forum to begin with?

Doubly ironic that you would then proceed to accuse me once again of evading the matter at hand when it is you that continue to tip toe around the main issues..

It doesn't seem you are the reasonable type.. I don't agree with Phage conclusions either but at least he has backed up his arguments with substance, not rhetoric.

I will not stoop down to your level. You can say what you want but I won't be conversing with you any further.





[edit on 17-3-2010 by bochen181]

Originally posted by bochen181

I will not stoop down to your level. You can say what you want but I won't be conversing with you any further.

What an astonishing and unfortunate coincidence!! Right after I make a challenge to his original post...


Anyway, I'll continue. I'll even be answering bochen's challenge above. It's a public forum - if he chooses to ignore me, so be it..

back shortly..

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by bochen181

I will not stoop down to your level. You can say what you want but I won't be conversing with you any further.

What an astonishing and unfortunate coincidence!! Right after I make a challenge to his original post...

Anyway, I'll continue. I'll even be answering bochen's challenge above. It's a public forum - if he chooses to ignore me, so be it..

back shortly..

This was your above post:

"Quite right, jra. Of course, NASA, as would any REAL researcher, only use images that actually belong together. Just because you can roughly line up one side of a hill against another (by suitably cropping and in some cases, resizing - aka 'cheating'), doesn't mean you should, and then expect to be taken seriously...

In fact, I would call that deliberate deceit. The entire LIE being pushed by the hoax-believers is dealt with in detail here:

www.braeunig.us...

PS - these deceitful images come from the completely debunked and ridiculed Jack White website. Anyone with a glimmer of photography experience will see that Jack's 'work' is unmitigated and deliberately misleading garbage of the lowest order.

It just goes to show that just because you found it on the Internet, doesn't mean it is right. To bochen, however, you can just copy and paste anything you find, and then move quickly onto the next one (for very obvious reasons)..

I trust discerning folk are noticing how he doesn't stop to debate? How he pretends he doesn't hear questions he can't answer?

You're like a diamond, bochen. Totally flippin' transparent.
"

You are either misinformed or misinforming, how have you in any way made any challenge or rebuttal to my ORIGINAL post as you have stated? Need I remind you, my original posts was about sun being too large and atypical luminosity, everything else are the side posts.. So unless you want to accept my challenge and find me an original + genuine photo of the sun that when color corrected looks like said below.. then I'm afraid you are just trying to distract and mislead..




I'm sure now you will call me a hypocrite to have "fallen for your bait" and etc.. Charmed I'm sure.. But you find me another Non-Apollo photo that looks like the one above when color corrected (and no Phage's entry doesn't count) and I'm out of here, because that will have accomplished what I set out to do anyway (which was to get clarification about the weirdness of the Apollo moon "suns" - whether from NASA or any other source..)

Anything else, you are just trying to spread disinformation and avoiding the real essence of what this topic and my original posts are all about. And I WON'T be replying to THAT.




[edit on 17-3-2010 by bochen181]

reply to post by bochen181

In these two consecutive Apollo 17 photos, the lighting on the LRV TV camera is almost identical, but the lighting on the background rocks changed nearly 180%. The shadow of the dish antenna gets smaller and changes position.

Either you have a strange idea about what "nearly" means or you have a strange idea about what 180º is.

The position of the antenna shadow changes because the LRV changed direction. Do you expect the shadow to follow it?

Shadows on the ground go in different directions when the terrain is not flat. The also get longer and shorter.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1b1bcbd93832.png[/atsimg]
There are not many places on the Moon that are flat.


[edit on 3/17/2010 by Phage]

[edit on 3/17/2010 by Phage]