Jack White Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 Can anyone explain this? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 Good god Jack, you claim to be a photography expert? The first picture was taken during a solar eclipse, the disk of the sun is blocked and a long exposure is taken of the dim corona. The second picture does not have the disk of the sun blocked, so the sun is massively overexposed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 LOL ... And you claim to be an expert in what ? .. Debunking the faked Apollo photography by pretending it's real ? Even when the sun is not being eclipsed , it doesn't look like a close up artificial spotlight ...That only occurs on the Apollo moon sets . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 (edited) LOL ... And you claim to be an expert in what ? .. Debunking the faked Apollo photography by pretending it's real ? Even when the sun is not being eclipsed , it doesn't look like a close up artificial spotlight ...That only occurs on the Apollo moon sets . Well then I guess it only happens in your imagination, because a) that looks like a picture of the sun, not a spotlight and there were no 'sets'. Edited May 15, 2007 by Kevin M. West Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 You mean you don't even know what the real sun looks like when it's photographed ? ... Tell you what then ... Why don't you go out and take some photos of the real sun and see if you can get any to look like the one's in the Apollo photos ? Maybe Dave will even loan you his camera to take the shots .... Then you can post them here and let's see if you can recreate that double shadow .. Oops , I mean that 'real' Apollo 'sun' . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 (edited) Can anyone explain this? Jack, this may be puzlzing to you, but you even stated in your "study" that the object in question appears much larger than from earth. Noone in their right mind would seriously suggest that what you see in this photo is the disk of the sun. The sun is approximately the same size in the sky as the moon is from earth - hence the angular size of the sun will be about half [EDIT] one quarter that of the earth in photos of the earth from the moon using the same lens. In other words the sun must be MUCH smaller than the object you've identified in the photograph. You proved this with the colour enhancements that show structure within the disk - you can even see lens artefacts. The light-source is over-exposed, whether you believe it to be the sun, a super-light, or scotch mist. The edge of the circle is NOT the edge of the sun itself, and if anyone claims that then I would say quite equivocally they're wrong. Edited May 20, 2007 by Dave Greer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 Of course it's not the edge of the sun itself ... It's perfectly round and smooth because it's the edge of a huge spotlight ... If being over exposed is your rebuttal , then you both need to return to the "Bad Astronomy School of how to Debunk the Moon Hoax Evidence" , cuz you are both doing a lousy job of it . The 'sun' looks like that in ALL of the faked Apollo photos ... and even when it does look smaller , it's only because they used a different size spotlight on the moon set . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 Of course it's not the edge of the sun itself ... It's perfectly round and smooth because it's the edge of a huge spotlight ... If being over exposed is your rebuttal , then you both need to return to the "Bad Astronomy School of how to Debunk the Moon Hoax Evidence" , cuz you are both doing a lousy job of it . But where is your evidence for this claim? No doubt this will become ingrained in your head as a proven fact at some point. Evidence? Analysis? Anything at all of substance to support your position? Oh, you can't provide supporting evidence that can be tested empirically - you label that "tap-dancing". The 'sun' looks like that in ALL of the faked Apollo photos ... and even when it does look smaller , it's only because they used a different size spotlight on the moon set . Evidence for a spotlight please! If it's so obvious you must be able to supply some, surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 The Apollo photos prove it's a spotlight , for all the reasons already mentioned .... The real sun doesn't look like what is featured in that photo that Jack posted here . Can you prove it's the sun ? ... Tell you what , I will take a picture of the sun and then I will take a picture of a spotlight ( I have friends in the theater ) and then we will see which one is a closer match for the Apollo photos . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 The Apollo photos prove it's a spotlight , for all the reasons already mentioned .... The real sun doesn't look like what is featured in that photo that Jack posted here .Can you prove it's the sun ? ... Tell you what , I will take a picture of the sun and then I will take a picture of a spotlight ( I have friends in the theater ) and then we will see which one is a closer match for the Apollo photos . Great, just make sure you use a nice Hasselblad camera, 60mm lens, mounted on your chest, ... and make sure there is a reseau plate in front of the flim gate. Your men Jack White and David Percy say this is the only way to test these sorts of things, so make sure you follow thier instructions....you don't want your debunking, "debunked" by Jack White now do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 The Apollo photos prove it's a spotlight , for all the reasons already mentioned .... The real sun doesn't look like what is featured in that photo that Jack posted here .Can you prove it's the sun ? ... Tell you what , I will take a picture of the sun and then I will take a picture of a spotlight ( I have friends in the theater ) and then we will see which one is a closer match for the Apollo photos . Duane actually taking a picture himself to test a claim? I'll believe it when I see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 The Apollo photos prove it's a spotlight , for all the reasons already mentioned .... The real sun doesn't look like what is featured in that photo that Jack posted here .Can you prove it's the sun ? ... Tell you what , I will take a picture of the sun and then I will take a picture of a spotlight ( I have friends in the theater ) and then we will see which one is a closer match for the Apollo photos . Great, just make sure you use a nice Hasselblad camera, 60mm lens, mounted on your chest, ... and make sure there is a reseau plate in front of the flim gate. Your men Jack White and David Percy say this is the only way to test these sorts of things, so make sure you follow thier instructions....you don't want your debunking, "debunked" by Jack White now do you? You obviously have confused the offside shadow studies , with the fake sun studies ... No Hassie with a chest mount is needed to take a photo of the sun and a spotlight .... Any camera can prove that the Apollo 'sun' was a spotlight ... and can prove that the real sun never made an appearence in any of the phony Apollo moon set piccys . AS12-46-6765 Kazimierz Ozóg noticed an interesting aspect of this photo from the Apollo 12 record. He considers that this is unlikely to be the sun, as surely it would be so bright as to burn out totally white. After darkening the image it appeared to him to be an artificial light source. See his enhanced study below. AS12-46-6765 enhanced close up This recent finding has very serious implications. It again suggests that the 'sun' in the Apollo photographs may not have been the sun at all, but a large, artificial light source. This possibility was first postulated in DARK MOON and the video production What Happened on the Moon? And as a Post Script, Jack White has enhanced a further version (see below) from another image taken during the same Apollo mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 (edited) You obviously have confused the offside shadow studies , with the fake sun studies ... No Hassie with a chest mount is needed to take a photo of the sun and a spotlight .... Any camera can prove that the Apollo 'sun' was a spotlight ... and can prove that the real sun never made an appearence in any of the phony Apollo moon set piccys . Great...we are getting somewhere! Now since you are repeating White and Percys handwaving, perhaps YOU can tell us WHY you MUST have a square format camera to test the offset shadow study? And WHY it does not matter what kind of lens/reseau plate system is used to test the sun flare? Just to make SURE you understand...White and Percys statement about needing a square format camera for the offset shadow test and your statement that any camera will do for this test is HANDWAVING simply because you have not backed up your claims with anything OTHER that your self servng words. To move it beyond handwaving you need to offer detailed and emperical (experimental) proof that your claims are correct. Hop to it tuber! Edited May 16, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 Just as I thought ... You can't refute the evidence that Jack and I posted here about the APOLLO 'SUN' really being a BIG SPOTLIGHT WITH A LIGHT BULB IN THE MIDDLE OF IT , so you resort to your typical "handwaving " claims about the off side shadows ... Jack's new study explained it and proved it .. and it's not his problem or mine that you refuse to accept it . How about looking at the photos of the FAKE APOLLO SUN ... and then , close your blind eyes, put your fingers in your deaf ears , and continue to pretend that the ridiculous Apollo photographs were really taken on the moon . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 Just as I thought ... You can't refute the evidence that Jack and I posted here about the APOLLO 'SUN' really being a BIG SPOTLIGHT WITH A LIGHT BULB IN THE MIDDLE OF IT , so you resort to your typical "handwaving " claims about the off side shadows ...Jack's new study explained it and proved it .. and it's not his problem or mine that you refuse to accept it . How about looking at the photos of the FAKE APOLLO SUN ... and then , close your blind eyes, put your fingers in your deaf ears , and continue to pretend that the ridiculous Apollo photographs were really taken on the moon . You are skirting the questions Duane? Why? Her we have a chance to see if you have a clue and you go and try to change the subject! Here are your questions again tuber... "Now since you are repeating White and Percys handwaving, perhaps YOU can tell us WHY you MUST have a square format camera to test the offset shadow study? And WHY it does not matter what kind of lens/reseau plate system is used to test the sun flare?" I don't think I've said a word about White and Percy "seeing bunnies in the clouds" in this latest study. Butlet me ask these "experts" two simply question about this silly picture game. If we assume the object in the Apollo image is indeed a studio light and we are seeing the bulb in the center of the reflector, how much must the exposure be shortened ( reduced from the base exposure required to expose the maiin scene) to allow the bulb to be seen in the center of the studio fixture? Next is this reduced exposure consistant with the actual Apollo photograph in question? Finally "experts" White and Percy, show us you experimental evidence that supports your answer to the above question. Now hop to it tuber and get your "experts" to answer these vital questions. They MUST answer them because they go to the HEART of the silly study. 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