Kevin M. West Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 The white square is not in the middle of the sun, the sun is in the middle of the white square. The actual size of the sun can only be SMALLER than the white overexposed area. 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 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 . No Jack's "study" threw away all of the detail that shows the sun and three specular highlihgts from scratches. The Green "blob's" are to help the visually impaired, and in your case it seems even more is needed to counteract your impairment. Edited November 21, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 Thanks for the lens flare lecture Dave , but I already know what it is and why it is ... If you already knew that the construction of the lens was a determinant factor of lens flare, why did you say this? 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 ? 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 . I found it on Flickr, I don't have the exact link. I don't need to explain why it is different to the other image I posted - the point you've failed to grasp is that a difference in lens flare between images does NOT mean that either of the images was faked, yet this is the argument you are applying to Apollo images. Why apply that standard to Apollo images, but not other images? Why are not not claiming that this image of the sun is fake, as you would if there were a similar flare or reflection in an Apollo image? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 Thanks for the lens flare lecture Dave , but I already know what it is and why it is ... If you already knew that the construction of the lens was a determinant factor of lens flare, why did you say this? I wonder if Duane is still clinging to that silly idea that some form of artifical light is what causes blue lens flares? LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted November 23, 2007 Author Share Posted November 23, 2007 (edited) Cropped still from video footage, again featuring a square floodlight reflection in the Apollo visor. This time the light spokes are few and far between. This is the original "square" light reflection image being discussed . You altered it to suit your purposes . Here's a message from my friend Jarrah White that I received this afternoon . Duane , My friend Ralph gave up debating with these pri*** a long time ago, as he said in Carrying The xxxx "There's no talking to them." I remember like yesterday that when I called him up for that interview, he said to me "Jarrah, I never get into debate with these guys, you know why? Because debate will always be won by the best xxxx. Jarrah No truer words were ever spoken . Moonfaker: Carrying The xxxx Edited November 24, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 (edited) Cropped still from video footage, again featuring a square floodlight reflection in the Apollo visor. This time the light spokes are few and far between. This is the original "square" light reflection image being discussed . You altered it to suit your purposes . Here's a message from my friend Jarrah White that I received this afternoon . Duane , My friend Ralph gave up debating with these <expletive deleted> a long time ago, as he said in Carrying The xxxx "There's no talking to them." I remember like yesterday that when I called him up for that interview, he said to me "Jarrah, I never get into debate with these guys, you know why? Because debate will always be won by the best xxxx. Jarrah No truer words were ever spoken . You go on about liars and then you post this statement: "This is the original "square" light reflection image being discussed . " The problem is that this is in no way the original image. This is a digital photograph of the image taken with a point and shoot camera from a computer screen...GREATLY ENLARGED. If you want to claim you have posted the original image..then post the orginal image...not some screen grab you claim is the original. And of course I altered the levels adjustment of the original file to bring out the hidden detail. You never seem to complain when one of your pals creates some "study" that consists of image adjustments. You only complain when your silly ideas are shown to be bunk. Finally I see you are claiming that you latest visor image is from a "square floodlight" and yet it contains a starburst. Since you pal St Mark claims that starbursts only happen with sunlight, is it now your claim that he is wrong about this? Inqurinig minds really want to know. Edited November 24, 2007 by Evan Burton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 Just a reminder - you post what someone has said, you are responsible for the content. Because you quote someone who has used unacceptable language does not mean the quote can be used verbatim. Edit out the offending text. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted November 24, 2007 Author Share Posted November 24, 2007 (edited) "This is the original "square" light reflection image being discussed . "The problem is that this is in no way the original image. This is a digital photograph of the image taken with a point and shoot camera from a computer screen...GREATLY ENLARGED. If you want to claim you have posted the original image..then post the orginal image...not some screen grab you claim is the original. And of course I altered the levels adjustment of the original file to bring out the hidden detail. You never seem to complain when one of your pals creates some "study" that consists of image adjustments. You only complain when your silly ideas are shown to be bunk. Finally I see you are claiming that you latest visor image is from a "square floodlight" and yet it contains a starburst. Since you pal St Mark claims that starbursts only happen with sunlight, is it now your claim that he is wrong about this? Inqurinig minds really want to know. Here's the straight crop without the screenshot ... It's still a square reflection . In the next frame the astronaut has moved but the reflection is still square ....You told Mike that you can replicate this "sun" reflection.... I guess some things are easier said than done , right " MRphotogod " . LOL So are you finally admitting that the Apollo "Sun" is really a "square flood light "with a starburst effect ? ... Inquiring minds really want to know . As for what is "bunk" ... That would be you altering the image we are discussing to look different than the shape it really is . Edited November 24, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 You have a strange definition of square. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 (edited) Also, Duane, yours are once again not originals, you can clearly see that the contrast has been increased in your images when you compare them to nasa's versions. http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20475HR.jpg http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20477HR.jpg Edited November 24, 2007 by Kevin M. West Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 Cropped still from video footage, again featuring a square floodlight reflection in the Apollo visor. This time the light spokes are few and far between. That's a very hexagonal looking square you've posted there Duane. A bit like this hexagonal looking sun taken from video of a recent space shuttle launch. Strangely, the flare in this last image is BLUE!!! NASA are quite obviously faking space shuttle launches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 Not only are NASA faking space shuttle launches (as proven by the hexagonal sun and blue lens flare in my previous post), but Russia also faked the first space walk by a cosmonot. One sun.... Two suns... Wait for it... three suns! Quite obviously faked in a Kremlin basement studio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 (edited) Here's the straight crop without the screenshot ... It's still a square reflection .Now thats finally the truth about the orignal image. (added on edit) I was wrong, again Duane has not posted the original crop but rather an ALTERED version. It has changed from the original by tha addition of substantial computer sharpening such as unsharp mask in photoshop, which changes the edges of details in the image. The image has also had the tonal range compressed via a levels or curve adjustment that again changes the original image. These images come from the photobucket pages of Michael St. Mark. I've no problem with making image adjustments, however to claim adjusted images are the originals is intellectually dishonest. It APPEARS to be a square reflection but as we know by looking at the image with the levels reduced...its not really square at all. In the next frame the astronaut has moved but the reflection is still square ....You told Mike that you can replicate this "sun" reflection.... I guess some things are easier said than done , right " MRphotogod " . LOL (Added on edit) This image shows even MORE distructive editting than the first. In addition to a levels or curve adjustment and very aggresive sharpening, heavy JPG settings have taken place that have introduced large jpg artifacts such as very visable 8 pixel by 8 pixel jpg "squares". These artifacts effect the edges of detail very harshly..to the point of making curved edge detail look square. The level of jpg artifacts is MUCH higher in this image that the first. Can anyone wonder WHY st mark would alter the original image to make curved detail look square...and not be honest about his alterations? And what does this say aoubt the poster of this intellectually dishonest information? Gee, I don't remember saying any such thing. Perhaps you can quote the words or admit you are not telling the truth? Things are far easier than you might think. And the second image STILL shows the square appearing refection? My you are REALLY grasping at straws now. So are you finally admitting that the Apollo "Sun" is really a "square flood light "with a starburst effect ? ... Inquiring minds really want to know . What? I simply asked to you explain your position. Is that so hard for you to do? I just want you to tell the truth. Even if your truth undercuts your pals position. Thats how truth works As for what is "bunk" ... That would be you altering the image we are discussing to look different than the shape it really is . No Duane, I simply showed what is actually there. The fact that you can't handle the truth is quite telling. To see exactly just how much bunk your ( and stmarks) position really is...well you are just going to have to wait to read the webpage. Edited November 24, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 (edited) Also, Duane, yours are once again not originals, you can clearly see that the contrast has been increased in your images when you compare them to nasa's versions.http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20475HR.jpg http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20477HR.jpg What, this michael st mark altered the images to make his point? Amazing I tell you . Edited November 24, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted November 25, 2007 Author Share Posted November 25, 2007 Cropped still from video footage, again featuring a square floodlight reflection in the Apollo visor. This time the light spokes are few and far between. That's a very hexagonal looking square you've posted there Duane. A bit like this hexagonal looking sun taken from video of a recent space shuttle launch. Strangely, the flare in this last image is BLUE!!! NASA are quite obviously faking space shuttle launches. I do believe you're right about this ... I always knew that nasa faked their Apollo photography , but I never realized they faked their Shuttle photography too ! How else could the "Sun" from LEO match the spotlight in the Apollo photo ? ... Both do look very hexagonal in shape ... and we all know that the real Sun is round ! I wonder what kind of cheap visors those Soviets used that would reflect the Sun not once , but three times !?!? .... Maybe nasa can use that excuse for their phony "Sun" reflections as well . As for the blue lens flare , that's one more thing which proves the Shuttle picture is as fake as the one showing those stars . 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