Duane Daman Posted November 17, 2007 Author Share Posted November 17, 2007 (edited) The blue is coming from the artificial light source reflecting off the camera lens No, thats not the case at all, for if it were why are blue flares also present in daylight photos? So now that we have that one all settled , would you like to explain why the real Sun doesn't look anything like the Apollo ''Sun" ? No that one is NOT settled and will not be until you renounce your claim that its the type of lihgt that is causung the blue flares. The Apollo sun and the earth sun look exactly the same, they are the bright spots in the center of the flares. They are different sizes due to different lenses. And the lens flares are different for the same reason. Oh and the sky is different too. But the suns are exactly the same. But the Suns are exactly the same . If you really believe that then I can understand why you are incapable of seeing that the Apollo photography is fake . The real Sun looks nothing like the Apollo "Sun" , which is a spotlight ... Jack already described the difference between the two in his study , so I need not go into it again .... The Apollo 'Sun" , as well as a spotlight , shows several rings surrounding a small light source , unlike the real Sun which looks like a solid white disc .... and the difference has nothing to do with the type of camera lens used . I will be posting some more studies here soon that will show the difference between the real Sun , the Apollo "Sun" and a spotlight .... The spotlight will match the Apollo "Sun"... which infortunately for you ( and nasa ) looks NOTHING like the real Sun . In the meantime , we will let the "gentle reader " decide if the real Sun and the Apollo "Sun" are "exactly the same " in Jack's new study . Edited November 20, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 But the Suns are exactly the same . I can't believe Jack is doing this again! He's using low resolution versions of images, messing around with them, then claiming some kind of mystery about what is clearly JPEG artefaction. Why? Why not use the high resolution version of the image, which I've linked to in this very thread? I've even stored a crop of the sun from this image on my Photobucket site. When you use the high-resolution version, you can see far more detail than is present in Jack's study. This has also been demonstrated in this very thread!!! I've even given instructions on how anyone who can operate a mouse can re-create this effect. Judge for yourself whether Jack has revealed some strange artifacts or not. Jack's effort. Aulis' effort. Some other idiot's effort. This is a no-brainer. It is a non-issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted November 20, 2007 Author Share Posted November 20, 2007 But the Suns are exactly the same . I can't believe Jack is doing this again! He's using low resolution versions of images, messing around with them, then claiming some kind of mystery about what is clearly JPEG artefaction. Why? Why not use the high resolution version of the image, which I've linked to in this very thread? I've even stored a crop of the sun from this image on my Photobucket site. When you use the high-resolution version, you can see far more detail than is present in Jack's study. This has also been demonstrated in this very thread!!! I've even given instructions on how anyone who can operate a mouse can re-create this effect. Judge for yourself whether Jack has revealed some strange artifacts or not. Jack's effort. Aulis' effort. Some other idiot's effort. This is a no-brainer. It is a non-issue. What I can't believe is what you're doing again ... Blaming Jack for the anomalies in the phony Apollo photographs , instead of the people who faked them . You seem to have missed the point of my rebuttal entirely ... Or this is just another one of your games because you have no real reply to this ? Your ananlysis is exactly the same as Jack's analysis , except for the colors used .... Both studies show a very small "Sun" surround by several different colored rings and lens flare ... So if you are going to accuse Jack of any wrong doing , then you will also have to be guilty of this . But the POINT here is NOT what your study looks like compared to Jacks ( even though they are identical except for the colors ) ... The POINT is that the REAL SUN , photographed by your friend Lamson , looks NOTHING like the Apollo "Sun" , allegedly photographed on the Moon by the Apollo astronauts . Lamson made the erroneous claim that " the suns were exactly the same " in the two studies ... But of course , as we all can see by looking at them side by side , nothing could be further from the truth . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 (edited) Oh geez, the suns look exaclty the same. In the Apollo image (daves) it's the orange circle in the center of the flare. In my image it's the whitish circle in the center of the flare. The size is different because my image was taken with a 200mm lens on a 35mm frame. (quite telephoto) The apollo image is smaller because it was taken with a 60mm lens on 70mm format (medium wide). No great secret for anyone who actual UNDERSTANDS photography. What surrounds the suns circle in both images is QUITE different as it should be. The optical systems are VASTLY different. The surroundings are vastly different. The conditions are vastly different. It is insane that anyone would attempt to compare these differences. Edited November 20, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 What I can't believe is what you're doing again ... Blaming Jack for the anomalies in the phony Apollo photographs , instead of the people who faked them . There are no anomalies, apart from the ones that are created when you over-process a compressed image then think that the JPG artefacts are real objects. You seem to have missed the point of my rebuttal entirely ... Or this is just another one of your games because you have no real reply to this ? I was replying to Jack's "analysis" that you posted. If it's irrelevant and warranted no reply, then why would you post it? On the subject of no reply, I'm still awaiting your response to my two posts above. Your ananlysis is exactly the same as Jack's analysis , except for the colors used .... Both studies show a very small "Sun" surround by several different colored rings and lens flare ... So if you are going to accuse Jack of any wrong doing , then you will also have to be guilty of this . Hang on a minute - a couple of weeks ago you were accusing me of inventing that orange dot. Now you're saying mine is identical to Jack's apart from the colours? 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 . Have you now changed your mind? In the post quoted above, you were adamant that I had invented the "orange dot", and that you believed the Aulis study which showed the sun to be too big. Now you are claiming that my study and Jack's are identical, and both show a very small "sun"? You can't have it both ways! If mine and Jack's studies are identical, and show the same size "sun", then the Aulis claim MUST be wrong. Congratulations, in your hurry to disagree with anything I might say, without even bothering to try and understand whether it might be correct or not, you have unwittingly used Jack's study to debunk the false claim made by Aulis! Now that you agree that the central bright dot approximates the size of the sun, can you present any evidence to show that it isn't the sun? Otherwise all we have is evidence (presented by myself and Jack) that the bright spot is the same size as the sun, and your insistence that it must be a spotlight. But the POINT here is NOT what your study looks like compared to Jacks ( even though they are identical except for the colors ) ... The POINT is that the REAL SUN , photographed by your friend Lamson , looks NOTHING like the Apollo "Sun" , allegedly photographed on the Moon by the Apollo astronauts . Lamson made the erroneous claim that " the suns were exactly the same " in the two studies ... But of course , as we all can see by looking at them side by side , nothing could be further from the truth . See Craig's explanation. Nuff said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted November 21, 2007 Author Share Posted November 21, 2007 Oh geez, the suns look exaclty the same. In the Apollo image (daves) it's the orange circle in the center of the flare. In my image it's the whitish circle in the center of the flare. The size is different because my image was taken with a 200mm lens on a 35mm frame. (quite telephoto) The apollo image is smaller because it was taken with a 60mm lens on 70mm format (medium wide). No great secret for anyone who actual UNDERSTANDS photography. What surrounds the suns circle in both images is QUITE different as it should be. The optical systems are VASTLY different. The surroundings are vastly different. The conditions are vastly different. It is insane that anyone would attempt to compare these differences. The Suns do NOT look exactly the same because one is clearly NOT the Sun and one is . I will post the proof of this later ... Meanwhile you and Dave can play all the games you like here ... It still won't change the fact that the real Sun looks nothing like the Apollo Sun , regardless of the circumstances ,or the camera used to take the photos. Take an example of any real Sun photo ( either taken from Earth or from space ) , and see if you can get the same effects that appear in the Apollo "Sun" study done by Aulis , Jack and Dave ... You won't , because the Apollo "Sun" is not the real Sun . "Nuff said " ?? ... Not by a long shot ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 I will post the proof of this later ... Meanwhile you and Dave can play all the games you like here ... It still won't change the fact that the real Sun looks nothing like the Apollo Sun , regardless of the circumstances ,or the camera used to take the photos. It's statements like this that show you either don't understand, or are totally unwilling to learn. You really think the circumstances, or the camera used, don't affect the way the sun looks in a photograph? That's an absurd statement to make. I could post any number of photos of the sun taken on earth or in space that have very different lens flare effect. On earth of course, there's the atmosphere to take into account as well. But if you insist, we can fill this thread up with lovely pictures of lens flare in its many guises. How about this one, which you say is proof that a stagelight of some kind was used, due to the shape of the reflection? Compare it to this photograph taken on a recent shuttle mission. Doesn't look like a lovely, round sun, but almost squarish - bit like the Apollo reflection. Don't hear many claims that NASA is faking shuttle missions... Take a look at this collection of lens flare images I've accumulated recently. Notice how different they are from each other - hexagonal flares, round flares, square flares, oval flares, tiny flares, large flares. How can you possibly claim that a difference in the properties of a lens flare proves that it is faked? Unless you're letting your pre-conceived opinion about Apollo cloud your judgement? Be honest with yourself, you don't have a very good track record at judging whether photos are fake or not. Neither can you supply any evidence that these Apollo images were faked either - you've just highlighted what you perceive to be differences and cried foul without even attempting to understand what might cause those differences. Take an example of any real Sun photo ( either taken from Earth or from space ) , and see if you can get the same effects that appear in the Apollo "Sun" study done by Aulis , Jack and Dave ... You won't , because the Apollo "Sun" is not the real Sun. Can you supply me with a photo of the sun, taken in space, outside a spacecraft, using a Hasselblad with the same lens as used on the Apollo missions? With the same aperture and shutter speed settings? The Apollo 11 image on roll 40 comes close, but since it was taken through two layers of coated glass it's hardly a surprise that the glare itself shows some differences - though the lens flare shows many similarities. If not, then you're not comparing like with like. Which is a bit like comparing these two photos of the sun, then claiming that at least one of them must be fake because they are so different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 Can you supply me with a photo of the sun, taken in space, outside a spacecraft, using a Hasselblad with the same lens as used on the Apollo missions? With the same aperture and shutter speed settings? And with dirty lens AND a peice of glass setting right over the film.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted November 21, 2007 Author Share Posted November 21, 2007 (edited) The light sources in the two visor reflection photos you posted above look nothing alike either ... The Apollo 17 one is very square looking and the one taken from LEO orbit , isn't . .. I can't believe that you think they look anything alike . So now the game is to claim that the Apollo "Suns" don't look like any other photos of the real Sun because of the "Hasslebald cameras" that were used , the "aperture settings" , and the "dirt" on the lens ? ... Oh please .... Is that the best you guys can do ? And could you please post the original source for this square "flare" photo , because it looks like something that was photoshopped . Edited November 21, 2007 by Duane Daman Removed accusation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 Duane, while we're on the subject of your "barndoor" image which you put so much faith in. Look what happens when we compare subtle differences in the image and question, and the one taken a second or 2 before it. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20474HR.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20475HR.jpg See how the shape of your "barndoor reflection" changes with a minor change in the angle of the astronaut's helmet? Specular reflections off scracthes and dust. Boring! But true. Again, just a few seconds later - let's look at the minor differences in the reflections on the visor in the following 2 images. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20476HR.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20477HR.jpg It's even MORE clear now that the shape of the reflection changes as the angle of the astronuat's helmet to the camera changes. It's being affetced by the dust and scratches on the lens (fraid so folks, those boring old specular reflections again!) As ever, the devil is in the detail. Boring old dusty scratches, and specular reflections I'm afraid. No exciting "barndoors" or "feathery horns". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 (edited) So now the game is to claim that the Apollo "Suns" don't look like any other photos of the real Sun because of the "Hasslebald cameras" that were used , the "aperture settings" , and the "dirt" on the lens ? ... Oh please .... Is that the best you guys can do ? Sadly for you itss a hard and fast fact the lens flare is caused by inter-reflection in a optical system. As such each specfic optical system will react differently to the same lighting input. The Lunar Hasselblad optical system was quite often comprimised by dirt on the lens and also included the reseau plate, a piece of glass at the film plane ...and also part of the optical system. Given that the reseau plate contributes to the double crosshairs in the light flare area, its a safe bet that it also contributes to the unusual light flare the lunar Hasselblads produce. And the lens dirt also effect the flare image. How do I know? I tested it with a Hasselblad lens just to see what would happen. Edited November 21, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted November 21, 2007 Author Share Posted November 21, 2007 So now the game is to claim that the Apollo "Suns" don't look like any other photos of the real Sun because of the "Hasslebald cameras" that were used , the "aperture settings" , and the "dirt" on the lens ? ... Oh please .... Is that the best you guys can do ? Sadly for you itss a hard and fast fact the lens flare is caused by inter-reflection in a optical system. As such each specfic optical system will react differently to the same lighting input. The Lunar Hasselblad optical system was quite often comprimised by dirt on the lens and also included the reseau plate, a piece of glass at the film plane ...and also part of the optical system. Given that the reseau plate contributes to the double crosshairs in the light flare area, its a safe bet that it also contributes to the unusual light flare the lunar Hasselblads produce. And the lens dirt also effect the flare image. How do I know? I tested it with a Hasselblad lens just to see what would happen. Yeah right ... The "Sun" is a different shape in almost every Apollo photo for one simple reason only ... IT'S NOT THE REAL SUN . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 The light sources in the two visor reflection photos you posted above look nothing alike either ... The Apollo 17 one is very square looking and the one taken from LEO orbit , isn't . .. I can't believe that you think they look anything alike . Sorry you missed the point. The point is, that reflections of the sun in a visor do Not have to be a perfect circle, as demonstrated. That fact is exacerbated by imperfections on the reflecting surface, you know, those boring old scratches and dust you claim don't exist on visors? So now the game is to claim that the Apollo "Suns" don't look like any other photos of the real Sun because of the "Hasslebald cameras" that were used , the "aperture settings" , and the "dirt" on the lens ? ... Oh please .... Is that the best you guys can do ? Duane What's the point in pushing the debate any further when you deny what causes lens flare? Of course, you need to deny it in order for your pro-hoax claims to stand up to scrutiny. You also don't seem to appreciate how dust/scratches/imperfections on a visor affects specular/diffuse reflection. Check out the ever changing shape of the reflection of the sun on the visors in these two spacewalks. Here's what causes lens flare, unless you know better? Source Lens flare is caused when light enters the lens at such an angle that the light rays do not completely flow through the lens, but instead are reflected back and forth between lens elements. The sun spots created typically show the shape of the diaphragm (aperture blades) the camera was using at the time the photo was created. A lens with a 5 blade diaphragm will produce sun spots with 5 sides. The more problematic issue with flare though is the lack of contrast flare can introduce into a photo Source Lens flare is created when non-image forming light enters the lens and subsequently hits the camera's film or digital sensor. This often appears as a characteristic polygonal shape, with sides which depend on the shape of the lens diaphragm. It can lower the overall contrast of a photograph significantly and is often an undesired artifact, however some types of flare may actually enhance the artistic meaning of a photo. Understanding lens flare can help you use it--or avoid it--in a way which best suits how you wish to portray the final image. Source Lens flare is the light scattered in lens systems through generally unwanted image formation mechanisms, such as internal reflection and scattering from material inhomogeneities in the lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 (edited) So now the game is to claim that the Apollo "Suns" don't look like any other photos of the real Sun because of the "Hasslebald cameras" that were used , the "aperture settings" , and the "dirt" on the lens ? ... Oh please .... Is that the best you guys can do ? Sadly for you itss a hard and fast fact the lens flare is caused by inter-reflection in a optical system. As such each specfic optical system will react differently to the same lighting input. The Lunar Hasselblad optical system was quite often comprimised by dirt on the lens and also included the reseau plate, a piece of glass at the film plane ...and also part of the optical system. Given that the reseau plate contributes to the double crosshairs in the light flare area, its a safe bet that it also contributes to the unusual light flare the lunar Hasselblads produce. And the lens dirt also effect the flare image. How do I know? I tested it with a Hasselblad lens just to see what would happen. Yeah right ... The "Sun" is a different shape in almost every Apollo photo for one simple reason only ... IT'S NOT THE REAL SUN . No, its not a square..its 4 roundish highlights very close together... try again next time. (levels adjustment) Edited November 24, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted November 21, 2007 Author Share Posted November 21, 2007 (edited) So now the Apollo "Sun" really looks like a dog's paw print ? .... This is getting more ridiculous by the minute .... At least Jack's study showed the shape of the reflected "Sun" without the need to superimpose four green blobs in the middle of it ... Try again next time is right . Thanks for the lens flare lecture Dave , but I already know what it is and why it is ... but what I still don't know is where you got this "square Sun" photo from ... Could you please link the original source to this very strange looking picture and explain why that white square is in the middle of the Sun ? ... Thanks . Edited November 21, 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