Duane Daman Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 My appreciation to Michael St Mark for the use of his Photobucket studies , in exposing the Apollo 'Sun ' as being a spotlight on a moonset . This is how a front view of the sun appears when reflected off the convex part of an astronaut's gold visor. Pay particular attention to the small size of the sun disc reflection in relation to the rest of the visor surface area . Real sun reflecting off the front curvature of an astronaut's visor in a vacuum ( enlargement). Note the regular concentric light spokes radiating from the sun disc. The source light must be both bright and circular to produce this effect. Al Shepard spacewalking on a Gemini Mission. The small sun visor reflection again creates multiple and regular clearly defined spokes of light through the camera lens. Neil practices contingency sample collection at Houston, early 1969. This is an example of a non-circular/ non sunlight primary light source (either a spotlight or a flash unit ) reflecting off an astronaut 's visor. ( enlargement ). Note the line of ceiling lights also feature in the visor, alongside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted October 2, 2007 Author Share Posted October 2, 2007 Note the shape of the Apollo visor reflection of the studio light, in extreme close-up. Note also no clean, regular concentric light spokes diverge from a circular centre as per the previous sun-in-visor examples. Compare the previous Armstrong image of visor reflection with the visor "sun reflection" in this Apollo 14 Hasselblad crop of Al Shepard supposedly on the moon - and draw your own conclusions about where this was taken. Compare the source light shape and muddy surround reflection in the same visor, with the previous close-up of Neil's. Why is the "sun" octagonal? Only a hard core NASA shill propagandist would claim this is the sun being reflected. Where are the clear, regular concentric light spokes consistent with sun visor reflection? And how DO you get an octagonal reflection of a circular light source on a convex surface? Square pegs, round holes and barn door lights spring to mind. Or maybe you like your huge barn door sun squared off, courtesy of the Apollo 17 lighting crew? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted October 2, 2007 Author Share Posted October 2, 2007 ... or maybe you prefer reality? ...... me too ! THANKS MIKE !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted October 2, 2007 Author Share Posted October 2, 2007 ONE GIANT SPOTLIGHT FOR MANKIND A STRAYDOG / GREENMAGOOS PRODUCTION http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaV7QB_ReTw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted October 3, 2007 Author Share Posted October 3, 2007 I decided to move Lamson's laughable 'rebuttal' to the appropriate thread . Quoting Lamson ... "Wow! At it again I see. NO Think TanK needed for this one either Duane, just an "AH" moment about some basics of photography. I'll get to a formal rebuttal soon, complete with EMPIRICAL evidence (you know that stuff you or Jack can't seem to provide). In the meantime riddle this. WHY is the "starburst effect" connnected to the LENS properties, and not the type of light?" My reply .. I just received an e-mail from a photographer friend who is keeping a very close watch on this topic to make sure that Lamson doesn't get away with his usual disinformation tricks . Here is his reply to Lamson's latest game ... "Your EF "friend" Craig is playing a false game. He is ascribing the shape of the "sun" in the visor to lens aperture mechanisms. You might like to show him the A17 "square sun" now. There are no square aperture shutter configurations in photographic existence and never have been. Or copy the real sun visor reflections from earlier in your post as examples. Ask him where the "lens mechanics" are there ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 I decided to move Lamson's laughable 'rebuttal' to the appropriate thread .Quoting Lamson ... "Wow! At it again I see. NO Think TanK needed for this one either Duane, just an "AH" moment about some basics of photography. I'll get to a formal rebuttal soon, complete with EMPIRICAL evidence (you know that stuff you or Jack can't seem to provide). In the meantime riddle this. WHY is the "starburst effect" connnected to the LENS properties, and not the type of light?" My reply .. I just received an e-mail from a photographer friend who is keeping a very close watch on this topic to make sure that Lamson doesn't get away with his usual disinformation tricks . Here is his reply to Lamson's latest game ... "Your EF "friend" Craig is playing a false game. He is ascribing the shape of the "sun" in the visor to lens aperture mechanisms. You might like to show him the A17 "square sun" now. There are no square aperture shutter configurations in photographic existence and never have been. Or copy the real sun visor reflections from earlier in your post as examples. Ask him where the "lens mechanics" are there ? No, Duane, your "photographer friend" is quite daft and unable to read as well. I did not "ascribe" anything to the shape of the sun. Read my question again and then see if your "photographer friend" has a clue. I'll even throw him a bone. The operative words were "starburst effect" And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you ascribe the lack of a starburst to the type of illumination? We will get the "shapes when I produce my empirical evidence. In the meantime why don't you have this "photographer firend" produce some empirical evidence of his own. That would be a switch. Lets see you guys PROVE that the ONLY thing that could cause these reflections is a barndoored light. I'm really interested to see the pentagonal set of barndoors. Right now you have offered NOTHING. You tubers have it in you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted October 3, 2007 Author Share Posted October 3, 2007 (edited) I'm really interested to see the pentagonal set of barndoors. And I'm really interested in seeing a real Sun reflection that would be in the shape of a pentagon or a square . Right now you have offered NOTHING Well if you consider nasa's faked photographs showing pentagonal and square shaped Sun' reflections "NOTHING" , then okay . You know that old saying , "Some pictures are worth a thousand words' ? Yes , they sure are ! Edited October 3, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 BTW, when you post images the polite thing to do is to list the image numbers. Care to add the ones for the Apollo images in theis thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 I'm really interested to see the pentagonal set of barndoors. And I'm really interested in seeing a real Sun reflection that would be in the shape of a pentagon or a square . Right now you have offered NOTHING Well if you consider nasa's faked photographs showing pentagonal and square shaped Sun' reflections "NOTHING" , then okay . You know that old saying , "Some pictures are worth a thousand words' ? Yes , they sure are ! In other words, your "photographer friend nor you can provide anything to back up your ASSUMPTION that the highlight were produced by a spotlight with a square and pentagonal set of barndoors. And your research and empirical testing has ruled out ALL other possibilities? You are making an ASSUMPTION that you are seeing a square or a pentagonal reflection. You need more than that Duane, and Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted October 3, 2007 Author Share Posted October 3, 2007 (edited) You are making an ASSUMPTION that you are seeing a square or a pentagonal reflection. You need more than that Duane, and Michael No "ASSUMPTION" is being made at all ... The shapes in the visor reflections ARE SQUARE and PENTAGONAL ... No real Sun reflection would ever look like that in a convex astronaut's visor .. I will be happy to supply the ID numbers to the photos ... but I can assure you , the shape of the "Sun" will unfortunately for you , remain the same . Edited October 3, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted October 3, 2007 Author Share Posted October 3, 2007 Speaking of barn door stage lighting ... Here's a description of what they are and a photo of one on the moonset .. "Barn Door .... An arrangement of four metal leaves placed in front of the lenses of certain kinds of spotlight to control the shape of the light beam. " http://www.schoolshows.demon.co.uk/resourc...ical/gloss1.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 (edited) You are making an ASSUMPTION that you are seeing a square or a pentagonal reflection. You need more than that Duane, and Michael No "ASSUMPTION" is being made at all ... The shapes in the visor reflections ARE SQUARE and PENTAGONAL ... No real Sun reflection would ever look like that in a convex astronaut's visor .. I will be happy to supply the ID numbers to the photos ... but I can assure you , the shape of the "Sun" will unfortunately for you , remain the same . Of course an assumption is being made. You were not there to witness either the condition of the visor/lens nor the taking conditions. You have offered nothing but your opinion that no real sun reflection can take these shapes. SInce you cannot support your opinion with facts of any sort , its is all assumed on your part. And again you ASSUME the reflections ARE square and pentagonal. It has yet to e proven that they actually ARE. I'm sure the sun reflection will remain the same, however I would like to find the source of your image. Edited October 3, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 (edited) Speaking of barn door stage lighting ... Here's a description of what they are and a photo of one on the moonset .."Barn Door .... An arrangement of four metal leaves placed in front of the lenses of certain kinds of spotlight to control the shape of the light beam. " http://www.schoolshows.demon.co.uk/resourc...ical/gloss1.htm Nice, I see you can read all about them, I on the other hand use them every day. Care to show us a five bladed barndoor? Which reminds me...I still need to dig through the recycle bin and find that MC visor with the smudge, or better yet I'll just add shooting a new one while I prove your "barndoor" photos wrong. BTW, when might we expect your empirical proof? Your "photographer friend" has the ability...right? So lets see it, for a change. And don't you have a few tests YOU were going to complete? Ever gonna getto it? Edited October 3, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 (edited) Speaking of barn door stage lighting ... Here's a description of what they are and a photo of one on the moonset .."Barn Door .... An arrangement of four metal leaves placed in front of the lenses of certain kinds of spotlight to control the shape of the light beam. " http://www.schoolshows.demon.co.uk/resourc...ical/gloss1.htm He might what to study up befer he puts his foot in his mouth next timeOh and BTW, your "photographer friend" is full of it. He might what to study up befer he puts his foot in his mouth next time. He sez: "There are no square aperture shutter configurations in photographic existence and never have been." Not a very good geek now is he. Maybe he shoud stay at the "tube" where he can't get himself in trouble. The Hasselbald 200 series cameras have a SQUARE focalplane shutter. Square Waterhouse stops were quite common in process lenses: "Nearly all process lenses have this facility for using shaped stop inserts. It was never really meant for round stops.<br>As Merg says, the plates had square, or sometimes diamond-shaped apertures punched in them. This gave a more precise shape to the halftone dots that the lens had to reproduce for process platemaking.<p>In colour separation work, the screen orientation is rotated to a different angle for each of the four CMYK plates. The stop was also rotated to line up with the screen.<br>Sorry for reiterating much of what was said above, but I didn't think that the purpose was properly explained in the previous posts." http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0037c6 I await his eamil to you admitting his error. Make sure you post it. Edited October 3, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted October 4, 2007 Author Share Posted October 4, 2007 (edited) Speaking of barn door stage lighting ... Here's a description of what they are and a photo of one on the moonset .."Barn Door .... An arrangement of four metal leaves placed in front of the lenses of certain kinds of spotlight to control the shape of the light beam. " http://www.schoolshows.demon.co.uk/resourc...ical/gloss1.htm Nice, I see you can read all about them, I on the other hand use them every day. Care to show us a five bladed barndoor? Which reminds me...I still need to dig through the recycle bin and find that MC visor with the smudge, or better yet I'll just add shooting a new one while I prove your "barndoor" photos wrong. BTW, when might we expect your empirical proof? Your "photographer friend" has the ability...right? So lets see it, for a change. And don't you have a few tests YOU were going to complete? Ever gonna getto it? The barn door light reflected in this A12 visor has the standard four blades , not five . I don't have to do any tests for you ... The photos show that it's not the Sun reflected in the A14 Shepard visor . Now it's up to you to prove that a Sun reflection could ever be shaped like the Pentagon ! LOL Never underestimate the knowlege of my friend or his ability to cut you down with "empirical" evidence . And please spare us all with any of your pictures showing "smudges" on visors ... That's the oldest excuse going for anything reflected in the Apollo visors that shouldn't have been there. Edited October 4, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now