The Apollo 12 sun is not real

  • 310 Replies
  • 69960 Views
Re: The Apollo 12 sun is not real
« Reply #90 on: January 14, 2009, 02:11:14 PM »
Then you need to read the thread again.  I explained the problems with your little experiment and it isn't up to me to spoon feed it to you.  Have fun.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/levels.htm

Your little diversion tactics aren't very convincing. How about explaining why the intensity of the sun is inconsistent in the Apollo photos?
Okay, I will tell you again. The atmosphere filters and warps the suns rays. It is much more powerful in space because there is nothing to block or distort it. That is why the intensity is different on Earth than it is in space.
I hate myself for coming here

Re: The Apollo 12 sun is not real
« Reply #91 on: January 14, 2009, 02:15:39 PM »
Then you need to read the thread again.  I explained the problems with your little experiment and it isn't up to me to spoon feed it to you.  Have fun.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/levels.htm

Your little diversion tactics aren't very convincing. How about explaining why the intensity of the sun is inconsistent in the Apollo photos?

Tom did you even look at the tutorial I posted?  Do you even know what the levels tool is doing?  You are simply merging the shadows with the highlights and posterizing the image, taking your black to 255 does nothing.  It has nothing to do with intensity except in colors present in the photograph.  The fact that you can posterize, an image I can't even find on the Apollo archives pages no less, to show me nothing but red, green, yellow and black tells me nothing of intensity, it only tells me of the saturation of those colors in the photograph.  Your point proves nothing.  Learn what the levels tool does before you use it to try and prove a point.
The Earth is Round.

Re: The Apollo 12 sun is not real
« Reply #92 on: January 14, 2009, 02:18:29 PM »
Then you need to read the thread again.  I explained the problems with your little experiment and it isn't up to me to spoon feed it to you.  Have fun.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/levels.htm

Your little diversion tactics aren't very convincing. How about explaining why the intensity of the sun is inconsistent in the Apollo photos?
Okay, I will tell you again. The atmosphere filters and warps the suns rays. It is much more powerful in space because there is nothing to block or distort it. That is why the intensity is different on Earth than it is in space.

Which I believe is exactly why your are seeing such an intense saturation of reds and yellows when taken on the moon.
The Earth is Round.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17962
Re: The Apollo 12 sun is not real
« Reply #93 on: January 14, 2009, 04:29:04 PM »
Quote
Okay, I will tell you again. The atmosphere filters and warps the suns rays. It is much more powerful in space because there is nothing to block or distort it. That is why the intensity is different on Earth than it is in space.

Why would the sun be inconsistent in intensity in the vacuum of space?

Quote
Tom did you even look at the tutorial I posted?  Do you even know what the levels tool is doing?  You are simply merging the shadows with the highlights and posterizing the image, taking your black to 255 does nothing.  It has nothing to do with intensity except in colors present in the photograph.  The fact that you can posterize, an image I can't even find on the Apollo archives pages no less, to show me nothing but red, green, yellow and black tells me nothing of intensity, it only tells me of the saturation of those colors in the photograph.  Your point proves nothing.  Learn what the levels tool does before you use it to try and prove a point.

So now I'm not even modifying the intensity of the image?

The levels tool has "nothing to do with intensity" by your own words. Your excuses keep getting better and better.

From http://www.creativity-portal.com/howto/a/photoshop.levels.html:

    "The Levels dialog box lets you correct the tonal range and color balance of an image by adjusting intensity levels of the image's shadows, midtones, and highlights. The Levels histogram serves as a visual guide for adjusting the image's key tones."

From http://www.smartcomputing.com/editorial/article.asp?article=articles%2F2004%2Fs1508%2F48s08%2F48s08.asp:

    "The Levels tool provides an image histogram and lets you adjust the intensity levels of shadows, midtones, and highlights."
« Last Edit: July 29, 2011, 09:13:39 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: The Apollo 12 sun is not real
« Reply #94 on: January 14, 2009, 04:31:21 PM »
Then you need to read the thread again.  I explained the problems with your little experiment and it isn't up to me to spoon feed it to you.  Have fun.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/levels.htm

Your little diversion tactics aren't very convincing. How about explaining why the intensity of the sun is inconsistent in the Apollo photos?

Tom did you even look at the tutorial I posted?  Do you even know what the levels tool is doing?  You are simply merging the shadows with the highlights and posterizing the image, taking your black to 255 does nothing.  It has nothing to do with intensity except in colors present in the photograph.  The fact that you can posterize, an image I can't even find on the Apollo archives pages no less, to show me nothing but red, green, yellow and black tells me nothing of intensity, it only tells me of the saturation of those colors in the photograph.  Your point proves nothing.  Learn what the levels tool does before you use it to try and prove a point.
Never can find toms picture through NASA's site.
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17962
Re: The Apollo 12 sun is not real
« Reply #95 on: January 14, 2009, 04:37:29 PM »
Quote
Never can find toms picture through NASA's site.

That's funny, I was able to find the pictures on the tire with all of about 30 seconds of work. By removing the last part of the file name it took me to the first page of the Apollo 12 Lunar Surface Journal:

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/

From there I clicked on the "Image Library" button.

Then I went to Edit -> Find in Firefox and searched for the image "AS12-46-6766"

Can your excuses for being unable to explain the apparent and observable get any lamer?
« Last Edit: January 14, 2009, 04:53:02 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: The Apollo 12 sun is not real
« Reply #96 on: January 14, 2009, 04:41:26 PM »
Quote
Never can find toms picture through NASA's site.

That's funny, I was able to find the pictures with all of about 30 seconds of work. By removing the last part of the file name it took me to the first page of the Apollo 12 Lunar Surface Journal:

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/

From there I clicked on the "Image Library" button.

Then I went to Edit -> Find in Firefox and searched for the image "AS12-46-6766"

Can you excuses for being unable to explain the apparent and observable get any lamer?
really because if I go to NASA's site i can not get to where you supposedly find these pictures
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

?

Bob28

Re: The Apollo 12 sun is not real
« Reply #97 on: January 14, 2009, 04:52:39 PM »
Quote
Never can find toms picture through NASA's site.

That's funny, I was able to find the pictures with all of about 30 seconds of work. By removing the last part of the file name it took me to the first page of the Apollo 12 Lunar Surface Journal:

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/

From there I clicked on the "Image Library" button.

Then I went to Edit -> Find in Firefox and searched for the image "AS12-46-6766"

Can you excuses for being unable to explain the apparent and observable get any lamer?
really because if I go to NASA's site i can not get to where you supposedly find these pictures
i couldn't find it either

?

grogberries

  • 3495
  • I am large! I contain multitudes!
Re: The Apollo 12 sun is not real
« Reply #98 on: January 14, 2009, 05:58:31 PM »
What kind of camera did the Apollo people use to take this picture? What film? How was it developed?

Photography is such an idiosyncratic medium that there is probably a wealth of reason why it would distort a very luminous object like the sun, but it would help to know the specifics to give more in depth explanations.

But in Tom's defense, He is not using pictures to prove the earth is flat. He is using this picture to prove the picture is fake! I find it perfectly understandable to make these points using the pictures. But I would say Tom is jumping to conclusions.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2009, 06:12:10 PM by grogberries »
Think hard. Think Flat.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42612
Re: The Apollo 12 sun is not real
« Reply #99 on: January 14, 2009, 08:46:30 PM »
Quote
Never can find toms picture through NASA's site.

That's funny, I was able to find the pictures on the tire with all of about 30 seconds of work. By removing the last part of the file name it took me to the first page of the Apollo 12 Lunar Surface Journal:

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/

From there I clicked on the "Image Library" button.

Then I went to Edit -> Find in Firefox and searched for the image "AS12-46-6766"

Can your excuses for being unable to explain the apparent and observable get any lamer?

Can you get more selective with your "evidence"?  I found those pictures, plus something else you conveniently neglected to mention: those pictures of the sun are out of focus.
Quote from: http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/a12pan1162703.html
Pete's 8 o'clock pan includes frames AS12-46- 6764 to 6782.

The first three frames are all up-Sun's and suggest that it was at the start of the pan that Pete thought that his camera might be malfunctioning.

As Pete mentions at 118:27:12, he mistakenly took the pan at 15-foot focus instead of 74-foot focus.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17962
Re: The Apollo 12 sun is not real
« Reply #100 on: January 14, 2009, 09:15:12 PM »
Quote
Can you get more selective with your "evidence"?  I found those pictures, plus something else you conveniently neglected to mention: those pictures of the sun are out of focus.
Quote from: http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/a12pan1162703.html
Pete's 8 o'clock pan includes frames AS12-46- 6764 to 6782.

The first three frames are all up-Sun's and suggest that it was at the start of the pan that Pete thought that his camera might be malfunctioning.

As Pete mentions at 118:27:12, he mistakenly took the pan at 15-foot focus instead of 74-foot focus.

Yes, I'm sure the 15-foot focus setting and the 74 foot focus setting on the makes all the difference on the astronaut's Hasselblad camera considering that the sun is 93 million miles away according to NASA.

Not to mention that whenever something is out of focus it just gets blurrier and fuzzier.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2009, 10:18:22 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: The Apollo 12 sun is not real
« Reply #101 on: January 14, 2009, 10:28:05 PM »
Quote
Okay, I will tell you again. The atmosphere filters and warps the suns rays. It is much more powerful in space because there is nothing to block or distort it. That is why the intensity is different on Earth than it is in space.
Why would the sun be inconsistent in intensity in the vacuum of space?
Quote
Are you even reading what you are responding to? I bolded the answer. Plus it is common knowledge that light moves best through a vacuum, just like sound moves best through water.
I hate myself for coming here

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42612
Re: The Apollo 12 sun is not real
« Reply #102 on: January 15, 2009, 06:16:30 AM »
Quote
Can you get more selective with your "evidence"?  I found those pictures, plus something else you conveniently neglected to mention: those pictures of the sun are out of focus.
Quote from: http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/a12pan1162703.html
Pete's 8 o'clock pan includes frames AS12-46- 6764 to 6782.

The first three frames are all up-Sun's and suggest that it was at the start of the pan that Pete thought that his camera might be malfunctioning.

As Pete mentions at 118:27:12, he mistakenly took the pan at 15-foot focus instead of 74-foot focus.

Yes, I'm sure the 15-foot focus setting and the 74 foot focus setting on the makes all the difference on the astronaut's Hasselblad camera considering that the sun is 93 million miles away according to NASA.

Not to mention that whenever something is out of focus it just gets blurrier and fuzzier.

Well, we already know that you don't know a whole lot about optics.  Now you are proving that you don't know much about photography either.  Yes, the combination of focus setting and aperture setting can make a significant difference in the way a photograph turns out.  Please do a little research on depth of field.  If the aperture of the camera was wide open, then a 15 foot focus setting would not have had enough depth of field to properly render a very distant sun where a 74 foot focus setting might have.  It depends on where that particular camera and lens combination has its infinity setting.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: The Apollo 12 sun is not real
« Reply #103 on: January 15, 2009, 07:30:34 AM »
You don't understand what I'm trying to tell you Tom.  That's ok though.  Don't worry about it.  Just go ahead and think you have made a point.  You posterized a picture of the sun from the moon to show us there is a large concentration of yellow and red pixels in the center and outer edge of the sun.  Good job Tom.
The Earth is Round.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17962
Re: The Apollo 12 sun is not real
« Reply #104 on: January 15, 2009, 06:53:20 PM »
Quote
Why would the sun be inconsistent in intensity in the vacuum of space?

Are you even reading what you are responding to? I bolded the answer. Plus it is common knowledge that light moves best through a vacuum, just like sound moves best through water.

Right, if light moves best through a vacuum, nothing to block it, then why would the sun be inconsistent in intensity in space?

Quote
Well, we already know that you don't know a whole lot about optics.  Now you are proving that you don't know much about photography either.  Yes, the combination of focus setting and aperture setting can make a significant difference in the way a photograph turns out.  Please do a little research on depth of field.  If the aperture of the camera was wide open, then a 15 foot focus setting would not have had enough depth of field to properly render a very distant sun where a 74 foot focus setting might have.  It depends on where that particular camera and lens combination has its infinity setting.

Are you still trying to claim that the sun was "out of focus"?

Even if it was out of focus, the sun would just get bigger and blurrier. An out of focus shot does not make sharp rings of brightness around the light source. An out of focus light source does not look like a spotlight when the intensity is adjusted. Everything just gets big and blurry. The edges are always dimmer than the source. Under no pretense is there a spotlight when the levels are adjusted.

Quote
You don't understand what I'm trying to tell you Tom.  That's ok though.  Don't worry about it.  Just go ahead and think you have made a point.  You posterized a picture of the sun from the moon to show us there is a large concentration of yellow and red pixels in the center and outer edge of the sun.  Good job Tom.

Nope. The level tool adjusts intensity. I adjusted the intensity of the image, showing that the edges of the sun were as intense as the center, like a spotlight.

Feel free to watch the video again. Nowhere do I hit the posterize dialoge.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2009, 07:29:05 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

grogberries

  • 3495
  • I am large! I contain multitudes!
Re: The Apollo 12 sun is not real
« Reply #105 on: January 15, 2009, 08:47:52 PM »
Where these photographs taken on a roll of film, like a Polaroid, or digital(prolly not right?)?
Think hard. Think Flat.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17962
Re: The Apollo 12 sun is not real
« Reply #106 on: January 15, 2009, 09:18:55 PM »
Where these photographs taken on a roll of film, like a Polaroid, or digital(prolly not right?)?

NASA took the photos with an essentially off-the-shelf Hasselblad 500C/M film camera.

http://www.eyescoffee.com/collectcamera/hasselblad500cm/index.php

?

Suscipio Letum

  • 30
  • Abandon hope, all ye who enter here.
Re: The Apollo 12 sun is not real
« Reply #107 on: January 16, 2009, 03:28:32 AM »
Where these photographs taken on a roll of film, like a Polaroid, or digital(prolly not right?)?

NASA took the photos with an essentially off-the-shelf Hasselblad 500C/M film camera.

http://www.eyescoffee.com/collectcamera/hasselblad500cm/index.php

Tom, if the sun were a lightbulb, then it's intensity would be constant. It's not.



This is the sun. See those bright spots? Those are flares. They cause the sun's light to change in intensity. Welcome to elementary astronomy.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17962
Re: The Apollo 12 sun is not real
« Reply #108 on: January 16, 2009, 03:31:50 AM »
Quote
This is the sun. See those bright spots? Those are flares. They cause the sun's light to change in intensity. Welcome to elementary astronomy.

So the sun had an enormous doughnut of sunspots facing the moon during the Apollo 12 mission? Is that what you're telling me?  ???

?

Suscipio Letum

  • 30
  • Abandon hope, all ye who enter here.
Re: The Apollo 12 sun is not real
« Reply #109 on: January 16, 2009, 03:35:54 AM »
Quote
This is the sun. See those bright spots? Those are flares. They cause the sun's light to change in intensity. Welcome to elementary astronomy.

So the sun had an enormous doughnut of sunspots facing the moon during the Apollo 12 mission? Is that what you're telling me?  ???

Who's to say the flare isn't in the center, making the surrounding area seem dimmer? Also, as a person who dabbles in photography, I know that if I were to use a film camera to take a photo of the sun, it would more then likely not appear correctly on the film, as the intensity of the light would compromise the film itself. Also, I'd like to know what "software used to measure intensity" you used. Please site the program.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17962
Re: The Apollo 12 sun is not real
« Reply #110 on: January 16, 2009, 03:40:13 AM »
Quote
Who's to say the flare isn't in the center, making the surrounding area seem dimmer?

So there's a circular area of flares in the middle, as well as a circular rim of flares around the circumference, all pointing exactly at the moon?  ???

Quote
Also, as a person who dabbles in photography, I know that if I were to use a film camera to take a photo of the sun, it would more then likely not appear correctly on the film, as the intensity of the light would compromise the film itself. Also, I'd like to know what "software used to measure intensity" you used. Please site the program.

Photoshop CS4

?

Suscipio Letum

  • 30
  • Abandon hope, all ye who enter here.
Re: The Apollo 12 sun is not real
« Reply #111 on: January 16, 2009, 03:48:42 AM »
Quote
Who's to say the flare isn't in the center, making the surrounding area seem dimmer?

So there's a circular area of flares in the middle, as well as a circular rim of flares around the circumference, all pointing exactly at the moon?  ???

Quote
Also, as a person who dabbles in photography, I know that if I were to use a film camera to take a photo of the sun, it would more then likely not appear correctly on the film, as the intensity of the light would compromise the film itself. Also, I'd like to know what "software used to measure intensity" you used. Please site the program.

Photoshop CS4

Tom, there's no software in photoshop that will give a scientifically accurate measure of a light's intensity, especially from a 2 dimensional image. Also, flares aside, you won't get a true image of the sun with a film camera, it's simply not scientifically plausible. The medium you're using to store the image is covered in a light sensitive silver halide solution, taking a picture of something like the sun compromises that medium. It's inadmissable.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2009, 03:54:56 AM by Suscipio Letum »

Re: The Apollo 12 sun is not real
« Reply #112 on: January 16, 2009, 07:26:23 AM »
Okay Tom I'm only gonna say this once so listen up.  When you adjust the levels of an image too much, the result is posterization.  It's a known fact that it will happen.  The video shows you swinging it all the way over and then pulling back on it.  Once I saw you were doing it completely wrong, I didn't need to watch anymore.  This very reason is why a lot of people who want to adjust images use curves instead.  You get a broader range of adjustment and finer control.  Anyway, I'm done.  think you've done what you want to think.
The Earth is Round.

?

grogberries

  • 3495
  • I am large! I contain multitudes!
Re: The Apollo 12 sun is not real
« Reply #113 on: January 16, 2009, 12:12:43 PM »
Where these photographs taken on a roll of film, like a Polaroid, or digital(prolly not right?)?

NASA took the photos with an essentially off-the-shelf Hasselblad 500C/M film camera.

http://www.eyescoffee.com/collectcamera/hasselblad500cm/index.php

As I thought! That site you gave me says the film used was some sort of Polaroid instant-film. I found pictures of other Polaroid photographs of the sun online taken from earth. There was a similar phenomena with the sun not being uniform when adjusted in an editing program. I can post examples if you like. I think this unregularity in light is caused by the nature of the film used, not that the photo is doctored or completely phony. 
Think hard. Think Flat.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42612
Re: The Apollo 12 sun is not real
« Reply #114 on: January 16, 2009, 12:24:56 PM »
Where these photographs taken on a roll of film, like a Polaroid, or digital(prolly not right?)?

NASA took the photos with an essentially off-the-shelf Hasselblad 500C/M film camera.

http://www.eyescoffee.com/collectcamera/hasselblad500cm/index.php

As I thought! That site you gave me says the film used was some sort of Polaroid instant-film. I found pictures of other Polaroid photographs of the sun online taken from earth. There was a similar phenomena with the sun not being uniform when adjusted in an editing program. I can post examples if you like. I think this unregularity in light is caused by the nature of the film used, not that the photo is doctored or completely phony. 

Actually, here is a better reference for the cameras used.
http://www.myspacemuseum.com/apollocams.htm#The%20Hasselblad%2070mm
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: The Apollo 12 sun is not real
« Reply #115 on: January 16, 2009, 07:23:06 PM »
Where these photographs taken on a roll of film, like a Polaroid, or digital(prolly not right?)?

NASA took the photos with an essentially off-the-shelf Hasselblad 500C/M film camera.

http://www.eyescoffee.com/collectcamera/hasselblad500cm/index.php

As I thought! That site you gave me says the film used was some sort of Polaroid instant-film. I found pictures of other Polaroid photographs of the sun online taken from earth. There was a similar phenomena with the sun not being uniform when adjusted in an editing program. I can post examples if you like. I think this unregularity in light is caused by the nature of the film used, not that the photo is doctored or completely phony. 
Do it. Show that loser
I hate myself for coming here

?

grogberries

  • 3495
  • I am large! I contain multitudes!
Re: The Apollo 12 sun is not real
« Reply #116 on: January 16, 2009, 07:52:13 PM »
I'd only do it for Tom. Not you.
Think hard. Think Flat.

Re: The Apollo 12 sun is not real
« Reply #117 on: January 16, 2009, 09:50:16 PM »
I hate myself for coming here

Re: The Apollo 12 sun is not real
« Reply #118 on: January 16, 2009, 10:31:33 PM »
We can't explain why you can't seem to adjust levels correctly.  That's what we can't explain.  Let it go Tom, you failed.

So now I'm not adjusting the levels correctly? Is that be best excuse you can come up with?  :D

http://www.screencast.com/users/tbishop/folders/Jing/media/d5784ce2-2348-40a0-8f9b-0ddf37763b6e
How come you used a custom preset for that Tom could you share it with us please
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

?

grogberries

  • 3495
  • I am large! I contain multitudes!
Re: The Apollo 12 sun is not real
« Reply #119 on: January 16, 2009, 10:41:47 PM »
I would share it with everyone of course. I'm just saying if it would please Tom for me to do it, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
Think hard. Think Flat.