Kevin M. West 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 . His study didn't prove anything, it just provided his interpretation of an image (that he did not explain how he manipulated). What his 'enhancement' revealed, in my opinion, is the sun, with a lens flare going through it, in the middle of the overexposed area. I will do my own study of jack's study and post it here soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 Here we see why Jack cut the area in question out of the original picture before 'enhancing' it. I scaled it back to the proper size and put it in the right position in the original image using the 2 fiducials visible in the 'enhanced' version. In the full context of the image, it immediatly becomes clear that the 'features' of the light are exactly aligned with the rest of the lens flare and the center fiducial. What he 'enhanced' was overexposure and lens flare. Does anyone have the image numbers for the other images used? I'd be willing to bet they are also in perfect alignment with the center of the lens, just like a flare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 I was curious enough to look at other images of the sun the Apollo record. These two are taken from Apollo 17, image numbers are as17-134-20410 and as17-134-20411. I've cropped both images, and altered the levels to bring out features in both pictures. In the second image, I've pasted in the Earth copied form another Apollo photo to give an idea of scale - the disk of the sun is approximately one quarter the size of the earth in this image. Looks like lens flare to me. In fact, I'd class this as extremely good evdience in favour of Apollo, not evidence against it. (After all, surely those whistle-blowers wouldn't have wasted their time faking lens flares in the over-exposed part of the film that could only be readily detected by computer technology that wouldn't be around for another 30 years or so the same time). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 Does anyone have the image numbers for the other images used? I'd be willing to bet they are also in perfect alignment with the center of the lens, just like a flare. Kevin They're the previous two image numbers, as12-46-6765 and as12-46-6766. I looked at them previously - surprise surprise, you see lens flare artefacts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted May 19, 2007 Share Posted May 19, 2007 Lens flare ?!??!! ... Unbelievable ! ... I was wondering what silly excuse you boys would come with for this one ... Did you think this one up all by yoursleves , or run to your think tank pals at clavius moon base for some back up ? Since when is "lens flare" the exact same exact shape as a light bulb ? Why don't you guys go a take an "overexposed" picture of the real sun , and see if you can match the "lens flare " in this phony Apollo photo .. You're right about one thing Dave ... This photo wasn't produced by whistleblowers , it was produced by nasa's photographers on the Apollo moon set ... and you're right about something else too ... No one knew over 30 years ago what type of computer enhancement technology would come along to expose nasa's faked 'moon' photos . Are you sure this lightbulb shaped image wasn't caused by "a smudge on the visor" ? .. LOL Look at it again ... It's a spotlight with a light bulb in the middle of it .. and the phony Apollo photos have been ... BUSTED ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 19, 2007 Share Posted May 19, 2007 Lens flare ?!??!! ... Unbelievable ! ... I was wondering what silly excuse you boys would come with for this one ... Did you think this one up all by yoursleves , or run to your think tank pals at clavius moon base for some back up ? Since when is "lens flare" the exact same exact shape as a light bulb ? Why don't you guys go a take an "overexposed" picture of the real sun , and see if you can match the "lens flare " in this phony Apollo photo .. You're right about one thing Dave ... This photo wasn't produced by whistleblowers , it was produced by nasa's photographers on the Apollo moon set ... and you're right about something else too ... No one knew over 30 years ago what type of computer enhancement technology would come along to expose nasa's faked 'moon' photos . Are you sure this lightbulb shaped image wasn't caused by "a smudge on the visor" ? .. LOL Look at it again ... It's a spotlight with a light bulb in the middle of it .. and the phony Apollo photos have been ... BUSTED ! No Duane it is A LENS FLARE, without a doubt. If White, Percy and company are saying it is not they are clearly unable to analyze photography. The real question at hand here is what lightsource caused the flare? The sun or a studio lamp. This study concludes via handwaving that the light source is a studio light, based only on the observation of an altered image that a "bulb' is visable in the fixture. This is akin to saying thats not really a cloud in the sky, its a bunny. In other words these jokers have simply made something up and said..thats it...we have proved the apollo images fake because this is a studio light. What has not been shown by the "its a light bulb" group is ANY evidence that what they propose can in fact actually be true. They simply expect the viewer to accept ON FAITH that they are correct. Anyone who would accept this premise ON FAITH would be a fool. The 'its a light bulb" group has made an extraordinary claim, and its up to them to provide the empircal evidence to support this claim, otherwise thier claim can simply be dismissed. Duane you have stated you were going to take a photo to PROVE it can't be the sun. Now you are backing up and saying those who oppose you should do so. Thats NOT how it works Duane. You support the unsupported claim ... YOU back it up with empircal evidence. So HOW can YOU or your foolish friends provide the empircal evidence to support your claim? 1. Take a picture of the sun as shown in the Apollo photo. In this instance you will be testing the performance of a VERY SPECFIC OPTICAL SYSTEM IN A UNIQUE ENVIRONMENT. In other words you will be checking to see if a ZEISS 60mm lens fitted to a HASSELBLAD DATA CAMERA ( with a GLASS RESEAU PLATE fitted at the film plane) responds to a direct sunstrike at near the optical axis...IN A VACCUUM! 2. Run the same test, this time using different styles of studio lamps. And finally you would need to truthfully answer these questions: 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 main 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? Get back to us when you have your empircal data....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted May 19, 2007 Share Posted May 19, 2007 Look at it again ... It's a spotlight with a light bulb in the middle of it .. and the phony Apollo photos have been ... BUSTED ! Again, the features of your so-called bulb are perfectly aligned with the rest of the lens flare and the center of the frame, prefectly consistent with it being the sun, a lense flare, and overexposure. For that to be a light, a lot of work would have to go into aligning the camera and the internal features of the light. They would have to rotate the light on its axis to keep the bulb holder perfectly aligned with the center of the frame, for each shot. Why the hell would they do that? Why would they be taking pictures of a spotlight in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted May 19, 2007 Author Share Posted May 19, 2007 (edited) These guys writing about LENS FLARES seem not to understand what they are talking about. They attribute all the anomalous "SHAPES" within the sun to a blanket "LENS FLARE" without explanation nor recognition that there are three types of lens flares: 1. APERTURE FLARE 2. LENS COATING FLARE 3. OVEREXPOSURE FLARE All aperture flares exhbit the SHAPE OF THE APERTURE. Since the adjustable leaf aperture of the Hasselblad made for a HEXAGONAL**** opening, all its aperture flares necessarily must be hexagonal. It is not possible to produce a ROUND lens flare through a hexagonal aperture. Therefore the anomalous shapes within the "sun" and the RINGS SURROUNDING IT cannot be aperture flares. If the photos of the sun have round aperture flares, they CANNOT HAVE BEEN TAKEN WITH A HASSELBLAD. (****CORRECTION: I just now searched apollo files and found an aperture lens flare and it is PENTAGONAL, not hexagonal as are many leaf shutter apertures. I will do an exhibit showing this and try to post it.) Overexposure flares exhibit rays, streaks, or solid areas of white overexposure, partially or entirely washing out the image. Such flares do not exhibit geometric shapes. Therefore, the geometric shapes in the sun photos cannot be overexposure flares. This brings us to LENS COATING FLARES. Modern cameras have COMPLEX LENSES as opposed to a simple lens. Several different lenses with different shapes and purposes are bonded together to form a "single" lens. This created early problems with complex lenses because each different element of a lens had a surface which had the potential for internal reflections inside the lens. Coatings were developed to minimize such reflections, but they can still occur when the lens is pointed directly at a light source. Such reflections generally assume the shape and attitude of the light souce, and generally form a straight line if there are multiple flares, with each flare representing a lens element. The "sun" photos exhibit some attributes of lens coating flares. BUT NOT ALL THE ANOMALOUS SHAPES SEEN CAN BE LENS FLARES! Also ignored is that LENS FLARES SUBTRACT FROM THE OVERALL IMAGE of the scene being photographed. Lens flares are an ADDITIONAL LIGHT EXPOSED ONTO THE FILM, and depending on the intensitity, SUBTRACT FROM THE SCENE'S IMAGE BY ADDING EXTRA EXPOSURE. Lens flares cannot ADD TO AN IMAGE. Lens flares cannot create ANOMALOUS SHAPES such as RECTANGLES. These guys claiming to be experts on lens flares ought to know what they are talking about...not just claim "LENS FLARES!" I will believe them when they take a Hasselblad camera loaded with Ektachrome, aim it at the sun, and replicate the "sun" photos. Since both the earth and moon are approximately 92 million miles from the sun, it should be easy. The scientific method requires that replication must achieve repeatable results. Gentlemen...start your cameras. Jack Edited May 19, 2007 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 19, 2007 Share Posted May 19, 2007 (edited) These guys writing about LENS FLARES seem not to understandwhat they are talking about. They attribute all the anomalous "SHAPES" within the sun to a blanket "LENS FLARE" without explanation nor recognition that there are three types of lens flares: 1. APERTURE FLARE 2. LENS COATING FLARE 3. OVEREXPOSURE FLARE All aperture flares exhbit the SHAPE OF THE APERTURE. Since the adjustable leaf aperture of the Hasselblad made for a HEXAGONAL**** opening, all its aperture flares necessarily must be hexagonal. It is not possible to produce a ROUND lens flare through a hexagonal aperture. Therefore the anomalous shapes within the "sun" and the RINGS SURROUNDING IT cannot be aperture flares. If the photos of the sun have round aperture flares, they CANNOT HAVE BEEN TAKEN WITH A HASSELBLAD. (****CORRECTION: I just now searched apollo files and found an aperture lens flare and it is PENTAGONAL, not hexagonal as are many leaf shutter apertures. I will do an exhibit showing this and try to post it.) Overexposure flares exhibit rays, streaks, or solid areas of white overexposure, partially or entirely washing out the image. Such flares do not exhibit geometric shapes. Therefore, the geometric shapes in the sun photos cannot be overexposure flares. This brings us to LENS COATING FLARES. Modern cameras have COMPLEX LENSES as opposed to a simple lens. Several different lenses with different shapes and purposes are bonded together to form a "single" lens. This created early problems with complex lenses because each different element of a lens had a surface which had the potential for internal reflections inside the lens. Coatings were developed to minimize such reflections, but they can still occur when the lens is pointed directly at a light source. Such reflections generally assume the shape and attitude of the light souce, and generally form a straight line if there are multiple flares, with each flare representing a lens element. The "sun" photos exhibit some attributes of lens coating flares. BUT NOT ALL THE ANOMALOUS SHAPES SEEN CAN BE LENS FLARES! Also ignored is that LENS FLARES SUBTRACT FROM THE OVERALL IMAGE of the scene being photographed. Lens flares are an ADDITIONAL LIGHT EXPOSED ONTO THE FILM, and depending on the intensitity, SUBTRACT FROM THE SCENE'S IMAGE BY ADDING EXTRA EXPOSURE. Lens flares cannot ADD TO AN IMAGE. Lens flares cannot create ANOMALOUS SHAPES such as RECTANGLES. These guys claiming to be experts on lens flares ought to know what they are talking about...not just claim "LENS FLARES!" I will believe them when they take a Hasselblad camera loaded with Ektachrome, aim it at the sun, and replicate the "sun" photos. Since both the earth and moon are approximately 92 million miles from the sun, it should be easy. The scientific method requires that replication must achieve repeatable results. Gentlemen...start your cameras. Jack How much misinformation can Jack White pack into a single post? Quite a bit it seems. Round or leaf flares? Both are possible depending on WHERE in the lens the reflection happens. Reflections happen either in front of the aperture or behind it. See attached photo for BOTH round and leaf flares in the same image. Jacks states that round flares are not possible, but its pretty clear that he has his head up his butt on this one... Lens coating flares? ROFLMAO! Sorry Jack, no such thing. A reflected flare happens, coated lenses or uncoated lenses. You are making stuff up again Jack! Coating do reduce the chance of internal reflection, but they still happen. Its called lens flare. Period! Lens coating flare??? How silly! Overexposure flare??? No Jack that is called Veiling flare. Its reduces the contrast of a photograph because of the stray light reflecting off of the lens elements or the lens barrel. Just how silly is Jack, first he tells us that you can't have round flares and in the next paragraph he tells us "coating flares" generally take the shape of the lightsource. Last time I looked most lights were round including the sun. So round flare are possible. (of course anyone with a brain already know that...) Finally Jack gets something right...well almost. Lens flare SOMETIMES will lower the contrast of an image, but not always. But then his doublespeak starts again and he tells us "Lens flares cannot ADD TO AN IMAGE. Lens flares cannot create ANOMALOUS SHAPES such as RECTANGLES." Of course we know THAT is not true as well because we can see the lens flare artifacts in the attached image quite clearly. And we know that non leaf flares often take the shape of the lightsource, and last time I looked a softbox is a rectangle. So make up your mind here Jack. It appears you don't know as much about lens flare as you want us to believe. Finally Jack gets the burden of proof backwards. He wants someone else to do HIS work for him. Jack has made the claim that the Apollo image in question contains a studio light with a bulb visable. It seems to me that the person who needs to grab a blad and do some experimentation is Jack. Of course that assumes Jack has ever had a Blad in his hands and he actually knows how to use one... Edited May 19, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted May 19, 2007 Share Posted May 19, 2007 (edited) You know, with all this back and forth, I've been waiting for someone to highlight a very basic problem about the original claim. So far no-one has done so, so I'll now raise it. Please note that I am in no way an expert in this, so please correct me if I err. I'm going to limit my points to equipment that was in use around this era, not modern day lighting sources. We are being told that the object we see in the "enhanced" images is a light bulb. If you look at the shape produced, it does have the appearance of a bulb. So this must be fairly strong evidence for the proposition that it is a bulb, right? Well, no. In some ways it is exactly the opposite. If we think about the "enhanced" images, what are we seeing highlighted? Basically, the areas of the brightest light (the particular "enhancement" used might be showing differing wavelengths of light; without knowing how it was "enhanced" I can't be sure). So the areas of the brightest light are being shown, and a bulb would certainly be this. What, however, makes the light inside a bulb? Depending upon the type of bulb involved it could be a filament, a carbon arc, or some type of gas discharge (that list is not exhaustive). In each case though there is a distinct element within the bulb that is producing the light. So if the images were as claimed a light bulb of some description, why don't we see the light-producing element within it standing out? Instead, we see something (possibly an artifact of JPEG compression) that has the shape of a bulb - even though it is not a bulb. Edited May 19, 2007 by Evan Burton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted May 20, 2007 Share Posted May 20, 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 . I think you may wish to rethink your theory after looking at these photos from Apollo 14. http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-66-9303HR.jpg http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-66-9304HR.jpg http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-66-9305HR.jpg http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-66-9306HR.jpg http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-66-9307HR.jpg I've turned them into an animated GIF here:- Care to explain how a huge spotlight managed to get in front of the LM, then in the very next photo all but disappear? Yet the shadows stayed commensurate with a distant light source? Please restrict your carefully considered analysis to words not including "blind", "lying", "NASA disinformationist", or "mind games". Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 Thanks for the new gif Dave ... I will be able to use this in my new YouTube video ( with your permission of course ) showing how the Apollo 'sun' was really a big spotlight on a moon set ... The spotlight "all but disappeared " from one photo the the next because the photos were taken from different camera angles ... The spotlight even changed size and shape from one photo to the next because either a different spot was used for the different photos or the spotlight aperature was adjusted .... I don't know if you realize this or not, but the real sun doesn't change it's shape or size like that within the context of one photo shoot . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 Thanks for the new gif Dave ... I will be able to use this in my new YouTube video ( with your permission of course ) showing how the Apollo 'sun' was really a big spotlight on a moon set ... The spotlight "all but disappeared " from one photo the the next because the photos were taken from different camera angles ... The spotlight even changed size and shape from one photo to the next because either a different spot was used for the different photos or the spotlight aperature was adjusted .... I don't know if you realize this or not, but the real sun doesn't change it's shape or size like that within the context of one photo shoot . Duane - what YOU fail to realise is that what you are seeing is NOT the disc of the sun - that is much smaller than what you see here. You're seeing a huge amount of over-exposure. That's why the amount of over-exposure is reduced in one of those photos - the disc of the sun is partially blocked by the LM. What you are proposing is that they had a huge spotlight lighting the scene IN BETWEEN the LM and the astronaut taking the photo, which would make the shadows in the scene impossible. For some reason "they" decided to reduce the brightness of the spotlight just when its filament is inline with where the sun would be if partially blocked. Once again, the only think you're demonstrating here is your incapacity for rational and logical thought. If you think I'm wrong, please explain why it is IMPOSSIBLE for that effect to be caused by the sun, glare due to over-exposure, and lens flare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 Sometimes I think you don't even understand English ... and you accuse me of having an incapacity for rational and logical thought ... Right . I hate to have to repeat myself but here goes ... Though I doubt you will undertand it this time either . I don't know if you realize this or not, but the real sun doesn't change it's shape or size like that within the context of one photo shoot . Thanks for the spotlight gif ... I will let you know when the new straydog / greenmagoos video is live on YouTube . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 Sometimes I think you don't even understand English ... and you accuse me of having an incapacity for rational and logical thought ... Right .I hate to have to repeat myself but here goes ... Though I doubt you will undertand it this time either . I don't know if you realize this or not, but the real sun doesn't change it's shape or size like that within the context of one photo shoot . Thanks for the spotlight gif ... I will let you know when the new straydog / greenmagoos video is live on YouTube . I'm sorry Duane but it's you who doesn't understand. It's NOT the sun changing it's size, it's the amount of glare that is reduced, probably as the sun is partially obscured by the LM! You didn't even bother looking ta the image where I pasted an image of earth on the scene and explained how big the sun's disc would be by comparison, did you? If you did, you'd realise thta what you are saying makes no sense at all, and is in fact utterly incorrect. 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