One Giant Spotlight For All Mankind

[Duane Daman]

There are numerous examples of the sun flare in a picture being larger than the actual size of the sun in the image.

For instance, in this picture, do you believe that the sun is actually overlapping the side of the building?

http://gallery.zed1.com/albums/Vivicam-tes...mage9.sized.jpg

I don't think this image has been altered at all, but cannot vouch for it. If anyone likes, I'll try to find the original image along with it's ID number and ensure it is not a composite of some type:

More examples:

http://images.fotosearch.com/bigcomps/DGV/...0204631-001.jpg

http://www.emilydewan.com/blogpix/20070707_jfcf_1506.jpg

http://www.nakaiphotography.com/blog/wp-co...joe-cate-27.jpg

http://tumyeto.com/images/uploaded/Austin-Sun-Flare_opt.jpg

etc, etc

What it means is that once more, Jack's study is wrong.

I agree with you that a very bright Sun does look as though it shines through objects ... A dimmer Sun , like at sunset however, does not .

The reason I posted Jack's study was not to show the Sun shining through the LM but to show the obvious difference in the size of the A14 Sun , from one photo to the next .... Dave blames this anomaly on an overexposed photo , yet I don't see enough difference between the exposure of the two photgraphs to have caused such a difference in the size of the "Sun" .

Speaking of the size of the Apollo "Sun " , here is part of a study on Aulis which shows how big the Apollo 17 "Sun" was in comparison to the Earth .

I'm sure that you will say that the reason is "flare" also ... but if you look a the "hot spot" ( which would most likely be the actual size of the "Sun" ) , you will notice that even it is twice the size of Earth ... An impossibility if this photo was taken on the Moon .

"Why does the 'sun' have a hot-spot in the middle of it?

It is very apparent that the brightness varies considerably across the disc. In fact it has a 'hot-spot' in the central area similar to those found in other Apollo images (see for example Further Findings). It is difficult to regard the ‘sun’ in this image as a photograph of the Sun as we know it.

Photographs AS17-134-20384 and 134-20410 were taken only 26 frames apart. Working with the full areas of both pictures at high resolution, and without changing any relative sizes, we cut out the image of the ‘earth’ from 20384 and placed copies of it over the image of the ‘sun’ in 20410

AS17-134-20410 and 134-20384 sun/earths combined – full image

AS17-134-20410 and 134-20384 sun/earths combined – close up

As previously stated, the Earth should appear several times LARGER than the Sun if these images really were taken on the Moon.

But, incredibly, in this imagery the situation is reversed. The ‘earth’ is not just smaller than the ‘sun’ – it is SIX TIMES smaller than the ‘sun’. A conclusion also reached by photo analyst Jack White.

The ‘earth’ may be the correct relative size for the scene depicted in 134-20384, but the ‘sun’ is most certainly far too large in 134-20410 and is therefore a very strange-looking Sun.

Some people may wish to argue that the hot-spot itself is actually the Sun. But even if this zone is considered to be such, it nevertheless covers well over two earth diameters, and is still more than nine times too large. "

http://www.aulis.com/sunsize.htm

[Dave Greer]

And here is a photo of an overexposed spotlight , according to the photographer .

Duane, for someone who accuses pro-Apollo people of disinformation, this takes the biscuit! That image is NOT a photo of an over-exposed spotlight. It's a photo of a sheet of paper, illuminated by an LED penlight!!! I'll be generous and say you misread the article.

Please retract the claim.

Source

Edited November 8, 2007 by Dave Greer

[Craig Lamson]

As posted in the OTHER thread about this sillyness:

Camera on a tripod shooting a setting sun. The ONLY thing that has changed from the left to the right photos is exposure time, with the exposure getting shorter as you move right. Top row are full frames, bottom row crops from the full frames.

NOTICE the "size" of the sun gets smaller as the exposure decreases and also note the "halo" around the glare of the sun, very similar to the Apollo inages in question.

You are toast once again duane...you need to quit listening to the quacks.

Edited November 7, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Duane Daman]

As posted in the OTHER thread about this sillyness:

Camera on a tripod shooting a setting sun. The ONLY thing that has changed from the left to the right photos is exposure time, with the exposure getting shorter as you move right. Top row are full frames, bottom row crops from the full frames.

NOTICE the "size" of the sun gets smaller as the exposure decreases and also note the "halo" around the glare of the sun, very similar to the Apollo inages in question.

You are toast once again duane...you need to quit listening to the quacks.

What proof do you have that these are pictures of the Sun ? .... And if they are , where were they taken that the sky was pitch black behind them ?

I hope you didn't get them from the faked Apollo photography , because if you did , then you just proved my point that the Apollo "Suns" are really spotlights on moonsets .

Those pictures look more like that flashlight picture than any picture of the real Sun .

As for me being "toast" , that remains to be seen ..

[Craig Lamson]

As posted in the OTHER thread about this sillyness:

Camera on a tripod shooting a setting sun. The ONLY thing that has changed from the left to the right photos is exposure time, with the exposure getting shorter as you move right. Top row are full frames, bottom row crops from the full frames.

NOTICE the "size" of the sun gets smaller as the exposure decreases and also note the "halo" around the glare of the sun, very similar to the Apollo inages in question.

You are toast once again duane...you need to quit listening to the quacks.

What proof do you have that these are pictures of the Sun ? .... And if they are , where were they taken that the sky was pitch black behind them ?

Simple, I have the camera raw files and I was the photographer. The sky was not black, it was a golden yellow. I converted to gray scale to make the gradients easier to see. BUT (and you would know this if you had purchased a clue somewhere along the line) the ske get darker and hte sun smaller because I bracketed the exposures. As such as the exposure was decreased the tonal range of the image was changed. Golden yellow was moved down the scale to near black

I hope you didn't get them from the faked Apollo photography , because if you did , then you just proved my point that the Apollo "Suns" are really spotlights on moonsets .

Nope, I got them from my Canon 1Ds, taken in a farm field in the middle of Kansas. Just standard old pictures of the sun.

Those pictures look more like that flashlight picture than any picture of the real Sun .

If thats what you see, you need to get out more and actually take some pictures, rather than listen to the likes of White, Percy and St.Mark. Those guys are selling you a bill of goods.

As for me being "toast" , that remains to be seen ..

Tool late. Those with a critical eye have already seen.

[Dave Greer]

I agree with you that a very bright Sun does look as though it shines through objects ... A dimmer Sun , like at sunset however, does not .

The reason I posted Jack's study was not to show the Sun shining through the LM but to show the obvious difference in the size of the A14 Sun , from one photo to the next .... Dave blames this anomaly on an overexposed photo , yet I don't see enough difference between the exposure of the two photgraphs to have caused such a difference in the size of the "Sun" .

Duane - I didn't blame the difference in the two frames on a difference in how the frames were exposed (i.e. difference in camera settings). It's a difference in how much of the sun's disc is visible, hence how much light enters the camera.

In the second frame (9306), part of the sun's disc is obscured by the bodywork of the LM. This reduces (but doesn't eliminate) the size of the flare in that particular frame. What this frame clearly shows, is that whether you choose to believe the light is from the sun or an artificial source, it certainly can't be the kind of artificial that you claimed you could see a huge bulb inside. The size of the glare has reduced - caused by the lightsource (I say sun, you say stagelight), being partially obscured.

Speaking of the size of the Apollo "Sun " , here is part of a study on Aulis which shows how big the Apollo 17 "Sun" was in comparison to the Earth .

I'm sure that you will say that the reason is "flare" also ... but if you look a the "hot spot" ( which would most likely be the actual size of the "Sun" ) , you will notice that even it is twice the size of Earth ... An impossibility if this photo was taken on the Moon .

"Why does the 'sun' have a hot-spot in the middle of it?

It is very apparent that the brightness varies considerably across the disc. In fact it has a 'hot-spot' in the central area similar to those found in other Apollo images (see for example Further Findings). It is difficult to regard the ‘sun’ in this image as a photograph of the Sun as we know it.

Photographs AS17-134-20384 and 134-20410 were taken only 26 frames apart. Working with the full areas of both pictures at high resolution, and without changing any relative sizes, we cut out the image of the ‘earth’ from 20384 and placed copies of it over the image of the ‘sun’ in 20410

<snip to save space>

As previously stated, the Earth should appear several times LARGER than the Sun if these images really were taken on the Moon.

But, incredibly, in this imagery the situation is reversed. The ‘earth’ is not just smaller than the ‘sun’ – it is SIX TIMES smaller than the ‘sun’. A conclusion also reached by photo analyst Jack White.

The ‘earth’ may be the correct relative size for the scene depicted in 134-20384, but the ‘sun’ is most certainly far too large in 134-20410 and is therefore a very strange-looking Sun.

Some people may wish to argue that the hot-spot itself is actually the Sun. But even if this zone is considered to be such, it nevertheless covers well over two earth diameters, and is still more than nine times too large. "

http://www.aulis.com/sunsize.htm

Unfortunately the good people at Aulis are the only ones making the false claim that the entire bright disk represents the size of the sun! It is very easy then for them to show how it must be too big cpmared to the Earth. It's quite obviously a strawman tactic. They continue the strawman by saying that "Some people may wish to argue that the hot-spot itself is actually the Sun". Not the hot-spot they've drawn!

The approach I took when analysing these photos goes as follows. We know we can compare the size of the Earth across photos taken on the same camera with the lens of same focal length. And we know the ratio of the Sun's diameter to the Earth's, as seen from the moon. Hence, we can easily show how big the actual disc of the sun should be. Once we've establihsed this (which is empirical data which can be tested and verified), THEN we can see how this fits in with the Apollo photos.

Here's how my analysis worked out.

And here's the example they used. I've done my own analysis of the frame in question (AS17-134-20410), using the very high resolution archive here.

This GIF below superimposes my own analysis over the Aulis analysis. It shows the simple error Aulis made in saying that the diameter of the sun is twice that of the earth in the image - their analysis (actually, their conclusion), was quite simply flawed. Clearly, the maximum angular size of the sun is considerably less than the Earth's diameter.

[Duane Daman]

As posted in the OTHER thread about this sillyness:

Camera on a tripod shooting a setting sun. The ONLY thing that has changed from the left to the right photos is exposure time, with the exposure getting shorter as you move right. Top row are full frames, bottom row crops from the full frames.

NOTICE the "size" of the sun gets smaller as the exposure decreases and also note the "halo" around the glare of the sun, very similar to the Apollo inages in question.

You are toast once again duane...you need to quit listening to the quacks.

What proof do you have that these are pictures of the Sun ? .... And if they are , where were they taken that the sky was pitch black behind them ?

Simple, I have the camera raw files and I was the photographer. The sky was not black, it was a golden yellow. I converted to gray scale to make the gradients easier to see. BUT (and you would know this if you had purchased a clue somewhere along the line) the ske get darker and hte sun smaller because I bracketed the exposures. As such as the exposure was decreased the tonal range of the image was changed. Golden yellow was moved down the scale to near black

I hope you didn't get them from the faked Apollo photography , because if you did , then you just proved my point that the Apollo "Suns" are really spotlights on moonsets .

Nope, I got them from my Canon 1Ds, taken in a farm field in the middle of Kansas. Just standard old pictures of the sun.

Those pictures look more like that flashlight picture than any picture of the real Sun .

If thats what you see, you need to get out more and actually take some pictures, rather than listen to the likes of White, Percy and St.Mark. Those guys are selling you a bill of goods.

As for me being "toast" , that remains to be seen ..

Tool late. Those with a critical eye have already seen.

I see ... So you took the Sun pictures yourself from a "golden yellow sky " and then converted them to "gray scale" ... and you expect me to believe this , why ?

I would like to see the original pictures before you changed the color .... Then I will decide if they are normal looking pictures of the real Sun or something you fabricated in your studio .

As for "White, Percy and St. Mark selling me a bill of goods" , you couldn't be more off base if you tried ... As for what you're selling , I'm not buying it .

Edited November 7, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Duane Daman]

I agree with you that a very bright Sun does look as though it shines through objects ... A dimmer Sun , like at sunset however, does not .

The reason I posted Jack's study was not to show the Sun shining through the LM but to show the obvious difference in the size of the A14 Sun , from one photo to the next .... Dave blames this anomaly on an overexposed photo , yet I don't see enough difference between the exposure of the two photgraphs to have caused such a difference in the size of the "Sun" .

Duane - I didn't blame the difference in the two frames on a difference in how the frames were exposed (i.e. difference in camera settings). It's a difference in how much of the sun's disc is visible, hence how much light enters the camera.

In the second frame (9306), part of the sun's disc is obscured by the bodywork of the LM. This reduces (but doesn't eliminate) the size of the flare in that particular frame. What this frame clearly shows, is that whether you choose to believe the light is from the sun or an artificial source, it certainly can't be the kind of artificial that you claimed you could see a huge bulb inside. The size of the glare has reduced - caused by the lightsource (I say sun, you say stagelight), being partially obscured.

Speaking of the size of the Apollo "Sun " , here is part of a study on Aulis which shows how big the Apollo 17 "Sun" was in comparison to the Earth .

I'm sure that you will say that the reason is "flare" also ... but if you look a the "hot spot" ( which would most likely be the actual size of the "Sun" ) , you will notice that even it is twice the size of Earth ... An impossibility if this photo was taken on the Moon .

"Why does the 'sun' have a hot-spot in the middle of it?

It is very apparent that the brightness varies considerably across the disc. In fact it has a 'hot-spot' in the central area similar to those found in other Apollo images (see for example Further Findings). It is difficult to regard the ‘sun’ in this image as a photograph of the Sun as we know it.

Photographs AS17-134-20384 and 134-20410 were taken only 26 frames apart. Working with the full areas of both pictures at high resolution, and without changing any relative sizes, we cut out the image of the ‘earth’ from 20384 and placed copies of it over the image of the ‘sun’ in 20410

<snip to save space>

As previously stated, the Earth should appear several times LARGER than the Sun if these images really were taken on the Moon.

But, incredibly, in this imagery the situation is reversed. The ‘earth’ is not just smaller than the ‘sun’ – it is SIX TIMES smaller than the ‘sun’. A conclusion also reached by photo analyst Jack White.

The ‘earth’ may be the correct relative size for the scene depicted in 134-20384, but the ‘sun’ is most certainly far too large in 134-20410 and is therefore a very strange-looking Sun.

Some people may wish to argue that the hot-spot itself is actually the Sun. But even if this zone is considered to be such, it nevertheless covers well over two earth diameters, and is still more than nine times too large. "

http://www.aulis.com/sunsize.htm

Unfortunately the good people at Aulis are the only ones making the false claim that the entire bright disk represents the size of the sun! It is very easy then for them to show how it must be too big cpmared to the Earth. It's quite obviously a strawman tactic. They continue the strawman by saying that "Some people may wish to argue that the hot-spot itself is actually the Sun". Not the hot-spot they've drawn!

The approach I took when analysing these photos goes as follows. We know we can compare the size of the Earth across photos taken on the same camera with the lens of same focal length. And we know the ratio of the Sun's diameter to the Earth's, as seen from the moon. Hence, we can easily show how big the actual disc of the sun should be. Once we've establihsed this (which is empirical data which can be tested and verified), THEN we can see how this fits in with the Apollo photos.

Here's how my analysis worked out.

And here's the example they used. I've done my own analysis of the frame in question (AS17-134-20410), using the very high resolution archive here.

This GIF below superimposes my own analysis over the Aulis analysis. It shows the simple error Aulis made in saying that the diameter of the sun is twice that of the earth in the image - their analysis (actually, their conclusion), was quite simply flawed. Clearly, the maximum angular size of the sun is considerably less than the Earth's diameter.

So once again , you have invented your own evidence to suit your side of the argument ... Sorry, but I'm not buying your little orange dot inside your GIF either .... The photo of the spotlight "Sun" at Aulis has not been altered to include a smaller "Sun" in the middle of it ... The "Sun" is the size of the "hot spot" , if not larger ... Which makes it over twice the size of the Earth ... Which is an impossibility if the photo had really been taken on the Moon .

Nice try , but I believe the Aulis analysis over yours ... and anyone NOT wearing pro-Apollo blinders will also .

Edited November 7, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Dave Greer]

So once again , you have invented your own evidence to suit your side of the argument

That's tantamount to accusing me of falsifying evidence, so I'll politely ask you to either (a) withdraw the remark, or ( prove that I "invented" this evidence (good luck with that).

(Incidentally, you still need to change the flase representation you made about the photograph of a spotlight a few posts ago. It isn't a photograph of a penlight either - it is a photograph of piece of paper illuminated by a penlight, as explained by the person who wrote the article you found the image in. You can hardly use that as an apples to apples comparison of what is supposed to be a "superlight" shining directly into a camera.)

EDIT Anyone who wants to see how this detail is brought out using the curve function and level inputs on Paint.NET (a free downloadable photo editting programme), please ask and I'll send you the PGN file.

The "curve" function and level altering can not add detail that isn't already present in an image - they change contrast ranges, which can enhance detail already present.

Edited November 8, 2007 by Dave Greer

[Evan Burton]

I agree with you that a very bright Sun does look as though it shines through objects ... A dimmer Sun , like at sunset however, does not .

The reason I posted Jack's study was not to show the Sun shining through the LM but to show the obvious difference in the size of the A14 Sun , from one photo to the next ....

But I am replying to Jack's study; that is why I said that Jack was wrong.

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l12/stra...a14sunsizes.jpg

You have said that a dimmer Sun , like at sunset, does not shine through. Could you explain to me why this is, and the relevance to Apollo 14 image? I don't see the linking. The flare in each means that the "apparent" size of the "sun" in each is different. To me, the size of the flare in each is different. I do not see how Jack's study nor the remark about sunset applies to either.

Thanks.

[Craig Lamson]

As posted in the OTHER thread about this sillyness:

Camera on a tripod shooting a setting sun. The ONLY thing that has changed from the left to the right photos is exposure time, with the exposure getting shorter as you move right. Top row are full frames, bottom row crops from the full frames.

NOTICE the "size" of the sun gets smaller as the exposure decreases and also note the "halo" around the glare of the sun, very similar to the Apollo inages in question.

You are toast once again duane...you need to quit listening to the quacks.

What proof do you have that these are pictures of the Sun ? .... And if they are , where were they taken that the sky was pitch black behind them ?

Simple, I have the camera raw files and I was the photographer. The sky was not black, it was a golden yellow. I converted to gray scale to make the gradients easier to see. BUT (and you would know this if you had purchased a clue somewhere along the line) the ske get darker and hte sun smaller because I bracketed the exposures. As such as the exposure was decreased the tonal range of the image was changed. Golden yellow was moved down the scale to near black

I hope you didn't get them from the faked Apollo photography , because if you did , then you just proved my point that the Apollo "Suns" are really spotlights on moonsets .

Nope, I got them from my Canon 1Ds, taken in a farm field in the middle of Kansas. Just standard old pictures of the sun.

Those pictures look more like that flashlight picture than any picture of the real Sun .

If thats what you see, you need to get out more and actually take some pictures, rather than listen to the likes of White, Percy and St.Mark. Those guys are selling you a bill of goods.

As for me being "toast" , that remains to be seen ..

Tool late. Those with a critical eye have already seen.

I see ... So you took the Sun pictures yourself from a "golden yellow sky " and then converted them to "gray scale" ... and you expect me to believe this , why ?

I would like to see the original pictures before you changed the color .... Then I will decide if they are normal looking pictures of the real Sun or something you fabricated in your studio .

As for "White, Percy and St. Mark selling me a bill of goods" , you couldn't be more off base if you tried ... As for what you're selling , I'm not buying it .

Why in the world would I lie about any of this? It would be a pretty stupid thing to do considering anyone with a camera can recreate my test and see for themself if my results can be duplicated. In fact thats exactly what I would expect a serious researcher to do...check for themself. This has been something that has been suggested to you many many times...and as far as I can tell you have yet to do so even once. Instead your system seems to be "I believe therefore I am right". Thats all fine and dandy, but given you are playing in an arena that is pretty black and white, empirical testing trumps "I believe" every time. And since the gang of three is selling you stuff sorely LACKING in empirical evidence...well that bill of goods leaves a LOT ot be desired....unless you plan on blindly taking things on faith. I thought you might be smarter than that.

So what kind of files do you want? These were taken in raw format, and you can have a unprocessed file for inspection uses only. Or I can post the porcessed jpgs...you name it.

Edited November 8, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Evan Burton]

Why in the world would I lie about any of this? It would be a pretty stupid thing to do considering anyone with a camera and recreate my test and see for themself if my results and be duplicated. In fact thats exactly what I would expect a serious researcher to do...check for themself. This has been something that has been suggested to you many many times...and as far as I can tell you have yet to do so even once. Instead your system seems to be "I believe therefore I am right". Thats all fine and dandy, but given you are playing in an arena that is pretty black and white, empirical testing trumps "I believe" every time.

Before anyone replies, I consider this important. One of the most crucial points is being able to reproduce an experiment. If there is a dispute between parties about whether something is possible or impossible and the conditions can be easily replicated by the average photographer, then the veracity of someone's statements in this matter should be tempered with knowledge of their having carried out any such tests in order to support their views.

[Duane Daman]

As posted in the OTHER thread about this sillyness:

Camera on a tripod shooting a setting sun. The ONLY thing that has changed from the left to the right photos is exposure time, with the exposure getting shorter as you move right. Top row are full frames, bottom row crops from the full frames.

NOTICE the "size" of the sun gets smaller as the exposure decreases and also note the "halo" around the glare of the sun, very similar to the Apollo inages in question.

You are toast once again duane...you need to quit listening to the quacks.

What proof do you have that these are pictures of the Sun ? .... And if they are , where were they taken that the sky was pitch black behind them ?

Simple, I have the camera raw files and I was the photographer. The sky was not black, it was a golden yellow. I converted to gray scale to make the gradients easier to see. BUT (and you would know this if you had purchased a clue somewhere along the line) the ske get darker and hte sun smaller because I bracketed the exposures. As such as the exposure was decreased the tonal range of the image was changed. Golden yellow was moved down the scale to near black

I hope you didn't get them from the faked Apollo photography , because if you did , then you just proved my point that the Apollo "Suns" are really spotlights on moonsets .

Nope, I got them from my Canon 1Ds, taken in a farm field in the middle of Kansas. Just standard old pictures of the sun.

Those pictures look more like that flashlight picture than any picture of the real Sun .

If thats what you see, you need to get out more and actually take some pictures, rather than listen to the likes of White, Percy and St.Mark. Those guys are selling you a bill of goods.

As for me being "toast" , that remains to be seen ..

Tool late. Those with a critical eye have already seen.

I see ... So you took the Sun pictures yourself from a "golden yellow sky " and then converted them to "gray scale" ... and you expect me to believe this , why ?

I would like to see the original pictures before you changed the color .... Then I will decide if they are normal looking pictures of the real Sun or something you fabricated in your studio .

As for "White, Percy and St. Mark selling me a bill of goods" , you couldn't be more off base if you tried ... As for what you're selling , I'm not buying it .

Why in the world would I lie about any of this? It would be a pretty stupid thing to do considering anyone with a camera can recreate my test and see for themself if my results can be duplicated. In fact thats exactly what I would expect a serious researcher to do...check for themself. This has been something that has been suggested to you many many times...and as far as I can tell you have yet to do so even once. Instead your system seems to be "I believe therefore I am right". Thats all fine and dandy, but given you are playing in an arena that is pretty black and white, empirical testing trumps "I believe" every time. And since the gang of three is selling you stuff sorely LACKING in empirical evidence...well that bill of goods leaves a LOT ot be desired....unless you plan on blindly taking things on faith. I thought you might be smarter than that.

So what kind of files do you want? These were taken in raw format, and you can have a unprocessed file for inspection uses only. Or I can post the porcessed jpgs...you name it.

I don't care which files you post here ... I would just like to see the original color Sun photos before you changed them to gray scale ... Then I would like to know why you think your Sun photos apply to the Apollo photos which were not taken on a tripod using different exposure times .

[Craig Lamson]

As posted in the OTHER thread about this sillyness:

Camera on a tripod shooting a setting sun. The ONLY thing that has changed from the left to the right photos is exposure time, with the exposure getting shorter as you move right. Top row are full frames, bottom row crops from the full frames.

NOTICE the "size" of the sun gets smaller as the exposure decreases and also note the "halo" around the glare of the sun, very similar to the Apollo inages in question.

You are toast once again duane...you need to quit listening to the quacks.

What proof do you have that these are pictures of the Sun ? .... And if they are , where were they taken that the sky was pitch black behind them ?

Simple, I have the camera raw files and I was the photographer. The sky was not black, it was a golden yellow. I converted to gray scale to make the gradients easier to see. BUT (and you would know this if you had purchased a clue somewhere along the line) the ske get darker and hte sun smaller because I bracketed the exposures. As such as the exposure was decreased the tonal range of the image was changed. Golden yellow was moved down the scale to near black

I hope you didn't get them from the faked Apollo photography , because if you did , then you just proved my point that the Apollo "Suns" are really spotlights on moonsets .

Nope, I got them from my Canon 1Ds, taken in a farm field in the middle of Kansas. Just standard old pictures of the sun.

Those pictures look more like that flashlight picture than any picture of the real Sun .

If thats what you see, you need to get out more and actually take some pictures, rather than listen to the likes of White, Percy and St.Mark. Those guys are selling you a bill of goods.

As for me being "toast" , that remains to be seen ..

Tool late. Those with a critical eye have already seen.

I see ... So you took the Sun pictures yourself from a "golden yellow sky " and then converted them to "gray scale" ... and you expect me to believe this , why ?

I would like to see the original pictures before you changed the color .... Then I will decide if they are normal looking pictures of the real Sun or something you fabricated in your studio .

As for "White, Percy and St. Mark selling me a bill of goods" , you couldn't be more off base if you tried ... As for what you're selling , I'm not buying it .

Why in the world would I lie about any of this? It would be a pretty stupid thing to do considering anyone with a camera can recreate my test and see for themself if my results can be duplicated. In fact thats exactly what I would expect a serious researcher to do...check for themself. This has been something that has been suggested to you many many times...and as far as I can tell you have yet to do so even once. Instead your system seems to be "I believe therefore I am right". Thats all fine and dandy, but given you are playing in an arena that is pretty black and white, empirical testing trumps "I believe" every time. And since the gang of three is selling you stuff sorely LACKING in empirical evidence...well that bill of goods leaves a LOT ot be desired....unless you plan on blindly taking things on faith. I thought you might be smarter than that.

So what kind of files do you want? These were taken in raw format, and you can have a unprocessed file for inspection uses only. Or I can post the porcessed jpgs...you name it.

I don't care which files you post here ... I would just like to see the original color Sun photos before you changed them to gray scale ... Then I would like to know why you think your Sun photos apply to the Apollo photos which were not taken on a tripod using different exposure times .

Fine, I'll put them up tonight.

I'm suprised you can't figure out the connection given we are talking about it..and I explained it, but here you go...again

It all has to do with the size of the sun and how it glare makes it look bigger than it really is. My examples show how a large "sun" in a properly exposed frame is many, many times large than the actual sun. My images show that as the exposure decreases and we get closer to a more proper exposure for the sun itself, the glare is eliminated and we can see the actual size of the real sun. Its the point Dave is making with his diagram and the point that is lost on White, Percy and even St Mark with his silly visor stuff.

So Duane, you have a chance to really learn something here...are you going to take it?

Edited November 12, 2007 by Stephen Turner
To remove personel insulting comment.

[Jack White]

The photo "experiment" is a visual non-sequitur and thus is irrelevant.

It does not represent a replication of sun photos taken from the moon,

which were at known apertures (like f5.6, 8 or 11). The f settings "on

the moon" were not meant to expose correctly for the direct sun, but

for the "moonscape" to expose properly.

The experiment sequence was shot with 35mm, not a Hasselblad.

None of the exposures exhibits a halo effect like Apollo pix. I won't

even go into the atmosphere vs vacuum issue...but on earth a

"flare" is caused by air particles reflecting the sunlight; in a vacuum

the "air" should allow for crisper images without halos or flares.

The experiment is worthless, shows no characteristics of Apollo

exposures, and was not shot under correct conditions with the proper

f-stop. Garbage in, garbage out.

Jack

Edited November 9, 2007 by Jack White