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

Originally posted by bochen181
...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?

...
I'm sure now you will call me a hypocrite to have "fallen for your bait" and etc.. Charmed I'm sure..

NO. Just incompetent. Still having observation problems, I see. Try looking up just a little further. (If you didn't repost so many images, it might be easier..) Here's a link:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now, pop your reading glasses on, and see if you can find the bit about
"By the way, bochen, here's a SPECIFIC CHALLENGE FOR YOU. "

You know, the images showing penumbra....???? It's tricky, all this reading, isn't it?.. and then when people expect you to comprehend...


Anyway, you stopped talking to me, remember?

Originally posted by Phage
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]

Look at the magnified photos more closely, you can clearly see the same rocks (small pebbles?) oriented in the same direction, this is not a case in which 88 and 89 photos have the LRV reorienting itself! I can visually identify the same or similar markers, there is obvious overlap..l This can only mean the camera simply panned left right while the LRV stayed in place. The ground at that place is very flat, not at all like the elevation demonstrated by your pic with those trees, you got shadows casting at dramatically different angles .. How can you explain this?

And even so, those tree angles are 15-20 degrees at best, the ones I shown are far more dramatic in far tighter a distance/place.. This is too much of a discrepancy.. I'm thinking stage lights moved relocation?



[edit on 17-3-2010 by bochen181]

[edit on 17-3-2010 by bochen181]

Originally posted by bochen181
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..

Please remember that panoramic photos are multiple photos put together. When you have something like a lens flare in several shots, it's going to move and change position with every shot. So when you put them together, it will look like you have several lens flares coming from one point. It's not that there are multiple Suns.

Just look at the individual photos by themselves to see what I mean.

Here's frames 21065, 21066 and 21067 from this panorama from Apollo 17. When you put them all together, you're going to get several lens flares mixed into one. You'll find that most Apollo panoramic images tend to have the lens flares removed for that reason.

Remember the original point I was trying to make was they messed up on the shadow casting..

Which reminds me. I still want to know more about the angle at which you put the Sun in your 3ds max file of the Apollo 15 landing site. Give me some details, numbers, something. Not a link to the orbiter simulator.

Originally posted by bochen181
...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... ""

OK, let's go. Point by point. But before I take on the actual challenge, I'm going to do what bochen doesn't. Actually give a full analysis and rationale for what follows. It's going to be long, so settle back, or move on..

1a
In order to undertake any type of reasonable analysis, you need to think about a few things. First of all, a small proviso (unfortunately, it's a biggie for bochen). For any image analysis, you need to have a source image that is useful for the intended purpose. Let's talk about that, shall we? bochen didn't think that was important. I beg to differ.

1b
Here, the intent is that bochen wishes to measure the sun's actual diameter, as recorded on film. Now s/he has already acknowledged that exposure settings affect how the camera renders objects - he pointed out correctly that the stars were not visible because the normal Apollo exposures were far too short. Ok, the stars were too dark. What about things that are too bright, like the Sun?

2a
The moonscape is not that much different to earth, in terms of exposure. It's a sunlit scene - and I think most folks have heard of Sunny 16/11 (or maybe you're old enough to have read the inside of a film box...!) Anyway, when an exposure choice is made, the photographer decides exactly what part of the scene s/he wishes to expose correctly.

OK so far? Agreed?


2b
Now. Let's be very specific. The settings that were supposed to be used by the astronauts were:
1/250, f5.6 (if the main subject was in shadow)
1/250, f11 (if the main subject was in sunlight)
using Ektachrome film with a sensitivity of ISO160.

Any experienced photog's here? If so, you would know that these are quite similar to what would be used on earth, on a sunny day.

2c
Now, when you point a camera on earth at the sun, using settings like that, the Sun will be very severely overexposed. Same applies on the Moon - if anything the lack of atmosphere will mean the Sun is a tiny bit brighter. You need to use very specialised filters to bring the sun's light level down to one that will be faithfully recorded. Can you look at the sun when it is high in the sky, and perceive its actual size? Of course not - it's a huge glary blob. Try it with a welders filter, grade 12 or so, and see the difference. That's the true size.

And of course, everyone has seen the bright huge blob that is recorded by any camera when pointed at the sun. Is it the right size? Of course it isn't.

But why is that? Why is a bright object likely to be the wrong size, specifically much bigger?

2d
Firstly, it is due to an 'overflow' effect, the light 'spills' outwards, reflecting and refracting multiple times as it strikes the film, goes through, hits the backplate, hits the film again, reflects back from the front surface. Some even strikes film grains and bounces sideweways through the film base itself. (It's subtly different for digital sensors, but a similar result). This happens multiple times if there is too much light for the film to 'absorb', and clearly that is the case here.

2e
Secondly, the lens introduces unwanted internal reflections and refractions from each glass element, providing more light spillage - these lenses have multiple elements, and of course each glass surface reflects some light, rather than refracting it. That reflected component then bounces back off the next glass surface it strikes, and so on, ever widening. Some of this 'flare' creates a washed out appearance, some appear as small blobs, some take on the shape of the aperture blades or show the internal design of the lens (esp, in mirror lenses), some of it simply contributes to the ever widening blob.

2f
Thirdly, the lens' internal barrel, aperture blades and even the 'light box' directly in front of the film, also create more sources for light spill.
Now you would think it might end there. Nope.

2g
Fourthly, the Apollo Hasselblads were equipped with a 'reseau plate'. That is a piece of glass with etched crosses on it, placed in front of the film but behind the lens. It is used to put those little crosses on the film to help with photogrammetry. That reseau plate was fitted even though the Hasselblad and Nasa folk knew that it would INCREASE lens flare effects significantly when shooting into the Sun. Any extra piece of glass, be it a reseau plate or front mounted filter, will increase flare - ask any photographer.

As was stated previously, it was well known that this plate added a few mm of extra flare around any sufficiently bright light source...

3a
So, after all that, can flare be quantified, can the 'spread' be measured for a given image? Well, in theory, if we had the camera in its exact configuration, yes we probably could, here on earth. But flare varies depending on the angle and intensity of the light source, so you can't just say it will be exactly xyz mm - you would have to graph it, or reproduce the angles precisely.

3b
Put simply - to determine an exact measurement would involve recreating the conditions exactly. Maybe there are a couple of duplicate Hassleblads floating around with the same 60mm lens and reseau, but without that, any attempt to measure such a variable effect is doomed to be a vague approximation at best.


So is that the end of it? OH NO. I haven't finished with bochen's faux-analysis, not by a long shot, just laid out the very first flaws in a series that stretches from here to Luna.. just wait till we get to the 'color correction'...

Note - all of the above is easily verified. If anyone disputes any of it, let me know and I'll post suitable references. But puh-lease, if you aren't familar with photography to a reasonable proficiency level, don't waste my time (listening, bochen?).

(To be continued...)

[edit on 17-3-2010 by CHRLZ]

I find it very upsetting that people still don't believe we went to the moon. The Lives lost, the Hundreds of thousands of scientists and engineers who dedicated their lives, the billions of dollars spent, the pride and hope of humankind and it's greatest accomplishment deserves more respect.

I think bochen181 is playing you all for fools - it seems this is designed to stir up argument, not to approach a topic with an open mind and hope to learn something.

Phage answered the "challenge" quite nicely, and got shot down. Apparently suggestions counter to the OP's deeply-held beliefs will be dismissed out of hand.

Anyone feel like doing photoshop tricks on any of these pictures of the sun? bochen - here's a chance to redeem yourself.

www.foxnews.com...
science.nasa.gov...
blog.ratestogo.com...

I don't have as much free time as the average moon hoaxer. Instead of debunking debunked debunking, I'll ask some questions of my own.

If you believe scientists could design, build and deploy an atom bomb in the 1940's, why is it so impossible that decades later there's rockets going to the moon?

If the moon missions were hoaxed, were the voyager probes hoaxed as well?
voyager.jpl.nasa.gov...

If Voyager is a hoax too, how did we get all those pretty pictures of outlying planets?

What about the Hubble Space telescope? Is it a hoax too? If so, how do we get all those deep field images?

My personal theory: The United States blew a ton of money sending some rockets to the moon. We came, we saw, we found nothing ever coming back for. I can't imagine why the moon hoax is such a big draw for people

An excellent find!

If this had been the sun, all shadows would be parallel. They aren't.

Also, at that angle, the foreground of the hills would be completely dark. However, they are lighted, indicating that the light source is between the hills and the camera. More interesting for me than the hypothesis that the light is staged is the indication that it is free-floating, covering a range of movement between the lighted hills and a short distance of only several yards away. It looks as if it could have been a "visiting" object.

Originally posted by bochen181
NASA has so far failed to acknowledge and failed to respond to my FOIA inquires into the nature of the weird atypical "sun" (both in terms of size, shape and luminosity) seen in these Apollo moon photos.

I'll tell you why NASA hasn't responded. They know you're a member at ATS where there are experts who can (and have) answered your question!

So why should they waste time and effort? They've got their hands full with more pressing tasks and FOIA inquiries that merit a reply!

Originally posted by bochen181

Originally posted by harrytuttle
That FOIA is completely unnecessary because it's obvious by looking at the photos that the white disk is not only the physical sun, but also lens flare. Look at the spacecraft's structure, for instance. Part of the white disk is in front of the spacecraft.

Why do some humans (like the person who made the FOIA) lack even the most basic analytic abilities?

Would you like to explain this to me then?

[edit on 16-3-2010 by bochen181]

The size of the sun will change depending on the focal length of the lens used its that simple maybe thats the problem for some people its TO simple.
If you know a bit about photography you would know whats happening.

What camera was used to take the pictures seen above then when you find that out compare with the pics in your OP.
They would have to have be same camera same film format(size) same focal length of lens.
We went to the Moon just deal with it!!!

reply to post by bochen181


Greetings Bochen,

I have enjoyed your presentation thus far. May I have your permission to repost your material elsewhere?

*I will be sure to properly credit you and list your sources

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by bochen181

 

I have enjoyed your presentation thus far. May I have your permission to repost your material elsewhere?

Aw God Almighty! Even when it has been proved beyond an iota of doubt that it's nothing but lens flare you still think it's a conspiracy worth discussing in other forums?

Hats off to your persistence anyway!

*Shrugs and keeps shaking head*

Originally posted by OrionHunterX

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by bochen181

 

I have enjoyed your presentation thus far. May I have your permission to repost your material elsewhere?

Aw God Almighty! Even when it has been proved beyond an iota of doubt that it's nothing but lens flare you still think it's a conspiracy worth discussing in other forums?

Hats off to your persistence anyway!

*Shrugs and keeps shaking head*

It hasn't been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Primarily, you don't see identical shaped and sized lens flare when taking pictures of the same light source from different locations and angles. Even with a long focal length and lens flare together couldn’t explain the uniform shape and size of the luminous object in the op’s images.

Come on.... Anyone with any photography experience knows this!!

Korg.

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
...
It hasn't been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Primarily, you don't see identical shaped and sized lens flare when taking pictures of the same light source from different locations and angles. Even with a long focal length and lens flare together couldn’t explain the uniform shape and size of the luminous object in the op’s images.

Come on.... Anyone with any photography experience knows this!!

Korg.

I'm going to assume that the lack of smilies indicates you are serious.

Korg, as you profess photography experience, please read through my lengthy discussion above in regard to the image in question and tell me if you dispute any of it so far, and if so give details.

And yes, if you don't like the look of where that post is leading, you are correct to be concerned. But the only reason you have anything to fear is if you don't know photography as well as claimed.


This same question applies to bochen and anyone else who thinks the overexposed images are in some way evidence for a hoax - what, if anything, in my post above is incorrect? Please provide details, no handwaving will be accepted.

So... who's up for a genuine, point by point debate?

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Korg, as you profess photography experience, please read through my lengthy discussion above in regard to the image in question and tell me if you dispute any of it so far, and if so give details.

I am a keen armature photographer... I used to have a makeshift darkroom until the advent of decent digital cameras...

I am not disputing that there is lens flare. I am however pointing out that the uniform size and shape of the luminous object in the OP images is very very odd indeed.

The images were taken at different angles, if this effect was purely lens flare the image would bleed differently as the light source would enter the aperture at different angles. The result would be a difference in size / colour and shape of the luminous object.

In addition, back then many filters were available that would have filtered out the light at a threshold to avoid over exposure, this fact in itself hints at something not right here. Why would nasa not consider this, knowing how thin the atmosphere is on the moon and so knowing the suns strengh would be vastly greater.

See where I am coming from??

So... who's up for a genuine, point by point debate?

We all are aren't we?

by the way, if you are into photography check out red dot... awesome quality equipment!!!

Peace Out,

Korg.

[edit on 17-3-2010 by Korg Trinity]

I seriously agree on the NASA pictures what a bunch of BS in alot of the mission pictures and then blurred out images or blacked out images tell ma about it. I just gave up tryig. Seen way too much already very disapointing if you aske me.

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
reply to post by CHRLZ

 

You believe because you want to believe and that's fine. But just like 9/11, when one takes the time to impartially examine the evidence -- both pro and con -- there are enough anomalies and ridiculous explanations to fly a 767 through.

I'm glad you're able to justify a papier mache looking spacecraft that's flown a quarter million miles and lands on the moon looking like new, without a smudge or speck of dust and without disturbing a pebble beneath it. This is just one of a zillion anomalies that sites like Clavius claim to have debunked, but they haven't.

BTW, anyone find those 13,000 "missing" Apollo tapes yet?

Also, why are foreigners on this board the staunchest defenders of U.S. government official stories? I guess you have to live in the States to understand the massive lies and deceptions that take place on a regular basis here.


[edit on 3/16/2010 by GoldenFleece]

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding about the lunar module if you are claiming that it was flown a quarter of a million miles. The lunar module was housed inside of the Saturn V rocket until the time of deployment.

Here is a link to a press kit that demonstrates the different manuevers:

A11 Press Kit

You can find graphics starting on page 11.

Originally posted by elfie

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
reply to post by CHRLZ

 

You believe because you want to believe and that's fine. But just like 9/11, when one takes the time to impartially examine the evidence -- both pro and con -- there are enough anomalies and ridiculous explanations to fly a 767 through.

I'm glad you're able to justify a papier mache looking spacecraft that's flown a quarter million miles and lands on the moon looking like new, without a smudge or speck of dust and without disturbing a pebble beneath it. This is just one of a zillion anomalies that sites like Clavius claim to have debunked, but they haven't.

BTW, anyone find those 13,000 "missing" Apollo tapes yet?

Also, why are foreigners on this board the staunchest defenders of U.S. government official stories? I guess you have to live in the States to understand the massive lies and deceptions that take place on a regular basis here.


[edit on 3/16/2010 by GoldenFleece]

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding about the lunar module if you are claiming that it was flown a quarter of a million miles. The lunar module was housed inside of the Saturn V rocket until the time of deployment.

Here is a link to a press kit that demonstrates the different manuevers:

A11 Press Kit

You can find graphics starting on page 11.

I think the point he was trying to make was the fact that there was ZERO I mean ZIPPO radiation insulation on the LM... I don't think he meant that the LM was actually boosted to the moon directly....

all the best,

Korg.

Originally posted by elfie
BTW, anyone find those 13,000 "missing" Apollo tapes yet?

I dunno about the 'missing' Apollo tapes, but here's where those missing Lunar Orbiter tapes were found...



Missing Lunar Orbiter Tapes Found In an Abandoned McDonalds

reply to post by OrionHunterX


Haha, cool! Slight misattribution though, that comment or question was posted by Golden Fleece.

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
[
I think the point he was trying to make was the fact that there was ZERO I mean ZIPPO radiation insulation on the LM... I don't think he meant that the LM was actually boosted to the moon directly....

all the best,

Korg.

Going back to the A11 Press Kit--the suits themselves contained some degree of radiation shielding (starting on pg. 121 of the pdf which corresponds to pg. 117 of the document).

[edit on 17-3-2010 by elfie]