[RD]

A flare spot can make the diameter of the sun appear to be bigger ...

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

diagonal flare spots can make the sun look like a light-bulb if contrast is increased ...

[ Invalid Attachment ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_flare

[Aemilius]

….increasing contrast causes sun to become to become the diameter of flare spot.

Remarkable RD the way you were able to create the solid white effect above, filling in the lense flare and turning it completely white. You're right, it looks just like the abnormally large Sun in the photograph I posted below. Unfortunately, it's provably of absolutely no use in explaining the abnormal size of the Sun in the photograph I posted (the one you seem unable to directly address). You see, the difference between the effect you were able to achieve above by manipulating that photograph from Wikipedia and the photograph I posted below (AS12-46-6765) is that the photograph I posted below showing the Sun almost ten times larger than it should be was not manipulated or altered to fill in the lens flare and turn it completely white, it is verifiably an authentic un-altered photograph of the Sun as seen and photographed by the Apollo astronauts from the lunar surface....

Even this old eighth grade dropout knows that it's patently absurd to think for a moment that the ability to create an altered photograph that makes the Sun appear abnormally large could somehow explain the Sun appearing abnormally large in an un-altered photograph. It's literally worthless for the purpose of answering the question I posed about the abnormal size of the Sun in the un-altered photograph (AS12-46-6765) I posted.... by that line of reasoning this element of your explanation is logically rejected.   

     
….flare spots look like neck of light bulb when contrast increased.

Very creative the way you darkened the image to isolate that part of the lens flare, it really does look like a light bulb! Again though, unfortunately, it's provably of absolutely no use in explaining the anomolous appearance of the solar disk itself in the enhancement of the photograph I posted. Upon closer examination, unlike the “light bulb/pineapple” that appears across the entirety of the solar disk,  the flare spots making up the neck of your “light bulb” are clearly recognizable as just that.... flare spots. Everyone has seen computer enhanced/filtered images of the Sun. I've seen hundreds like those below on the left and I've never seen anything even remotely similar to the stunningly anomolous appearance of the solar disk as revealed by the enhanced image of it from the photograph taken by the astronauts on the lunar surface I posted. In fact, its appearance is so outrageously incongruous with what we know of the Sun the adjective “anomolous” is laughably insufficient to describe it! 

For a second time now RD I've clearly shown that all the assertions that make up your "explanations" lack any merit. In view of the above, what your saying can't be called an explanation of any kind because, just as before, you haven't actually answered anything, proved anything, refuted anything or provided any intelligible explanation.... of anything. That, along with the fact that you could actually commit such an enormous analytical blunder as believing that a created anomoly in an altered photograph could possibly be used to explain a genuine anomoly in an un-altered photograph has your credibility plummeting in my opinion.

Thanks again though for sharing your opinion. Why not have those cuts and bruises seen to.... I'll just sit here in my corner and have a martini while I wait for the next round!

[RD]

... I'll just sit here in my corner and have a martini while I wait for the next round!

Don't you know alcohol causes brain-damage ?.

There is a sequence of images from AS12-46-6761 to AS12-46-6769 which include the sun and lens-flare.

Either the "anomalous" phenomenon is lens-flare , or they must have changed the shape of the bulb between consecutive exposures.

Put down that martini , you don't have the IQ points to spare.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]
High-contrast  AS12-46-6765 + blue dot the size of the sun.

Also see the example below where the direct image of the sun appears twice the diameter it should because of flare and overexposure, (the ghost images of the partial-eclipse are actual size)  ...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_flare#Gallery

[Aemilius]

First you tried to assert that it coudn't be an artificial light source because if it were, the apparent fitting/socket for the bulb would be located at the back and would invariably be hidden by the bulb when looking at any reflector head on.... I showed why that assertion was based on an eroneous observation by pointing out that it's common to mount the fitting/socket for high intensity and other bulbs (both single and double ended) that way through the side and across the reflector rather than from the back.   

Next, using an un-altered photograph of the LEM you tried to assert that it couldn't be an artificial light source because if the outer ring of the lense flare was the outer edge of the reflector, the fact that it shows up between the LEM and the camera proved it wasn't a reflector since part of it would be hidden behind the LEM.... I showed how that assertion was based on an eroneous observation by pointing out that in the computer enhanced portion of the photograph I posted it was the outer edge of the solar disk itself that appeared to be the outer edge of a reflector and not the outer ring of the lense flare.

Then you tried to assert that since the completely white portion of the unaltered photograph I posted could be created by altering the contrast to fill the outer ring, turning it completely white in a different photograph, that it wasn't really an anomoly.... I showed how that assertion was based on an eroneous observation by pointing out that the ability to create an altered photograph that makes the Sun appear abnormally large cannot be used to explain the Sun appearing abnormally large in an un-altered photograph.

Using contrast again to alter the photograph of the LEM, you created the appearance of a light bulb by darkening it to obscure the outer ring and parts of the area around the diagonal lense flare to create what appears to be the neck of a light bulb.... Just as before though with your third explantion, the ability to create an altered photograph that makes a light bulb appear does nothing to explain why the Sun appears abnormally large in an un-altered photograph.

Now, it's back to using more contrast again to alter the enhanced portion of the photograph I posted, highlighting one of the dimmer off center flare spots (blue) and declaring it to be the size of the Sun, even though by far the brightest area and obvious source of light in the image remains at the center of the outer ring despite your manipulation. 

My impression is that you seem far more interested in trying to create convincing evidence through manipulation of the image rather than reveal it and, interestingly, you never stop once to defend an assertion you've made that I've refuted, you just move on to try and make another new assertion. In light of that, I just don't see any of these provenly failed attempts to explain either the anomolous solar chacteristics or the abnormal size of the Sun as being at all compelling or substantial when it comes to explaining anything or answering the questions I posed.

That's fine though RD, and thanks, I have your opinion now.... and you now have my assessment of your opinion.

[RD]

Now, it's back to using more contrast again to alter the enhanced portion of the photograph I posted, highlighting one of the dimmer off center flare spots (blue) and declaring it to be the size of the Sun, even though by far the brightest area and obvious source of light in the image remains at the center of the outer ring despite your manipulation.

#1 the blue disk I've added is the size of the sun, ( the diagonal of the full frame of  AS12-46-6765 is 55^o, the angular diameter of the sun is 0.5^o ). 



#2 the flare spot which matches the size of the sun is a ghost-image, like those of the partial eclipse below , the ghost images are much fainter than other areas but are an accurate representation of the size and shape of the light-source (the sun).



If you studied the sequence of NASA images as I suggested above, (reply#163) , you will see that the alleged anomaly changes in shape on each frame so cannot be the outline of a light-bulb, unless they used a different shaped light bulb on each frame.

[Aemilius]

Thanks RD, but I think I've had about enough of your brand of "explanation" for now.... talk to you later.

[dlorde]

Looks like lens flare to me... the problem with 'computer analysis' is the the results will vary depending on the algorithms used, and unless you know what you're doing (and are familiar with photographic artefacts), you'll just end up enhancing the artefacts. GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) as we used to say.

I saw a good video recently by a guy who worked with film and video in the 60's and 70's, explaining how, given the video & film technology available at the time, it wasn't possible to fake the moving images NASA broadcast live, even if they'd had access to secret facilities 10x better than what was available to studios & research labs. It's astonishing just how primitive video was in those days, and converting that much continuous footage from 35mm film just wasn't feasible. He wryly said he didn't know for sure if man had been to the moon, but he did know they couldn't have faked the broadcasts I'll see if I can find it and post it here, when I get home.

[Aemilius]

Hey diorde (nice to meet you)....

Looks like lens flare to me... the problem with 'computer analysis' is the results will vary depending on the algorithms used, and unless you know what you're doing (and are familiar with photographic artefacts), you'll just end up enhancing the artefacts. GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) as we used to say.

Well, it doesn't look like lense flare to me, but I definitely get what you're saying about computer analysis. I know this was touched on earlier but I do have another question about the crosshairs in Apollo lunar photography if someone would care to take a shot at it. First, a little foundation....

The cameras the astronauts were equipped with were fitted with a glass plate that had black crosshairs precision etched onto it. When the astronauts took a photograph, the crosshairs naturally cast their shadow on the film and the shape of those shadows literally become part of the image.

In an earlier post by RD, he used an image of the Apollo 14 LEM on the lunar surface in an attempt to try and support his (provenly eroneous) explanation of the two questions I had earlier about the sun. When I took a closer look at it though, I noticed that the reticles are not only distorted but are actually hovering just above the surface of the image and casting a shadow down onto the image below in a manner indentical in every way to what one would expect to see if a printed transparency of the reticles had been carelessly placed on top of the image that was not kept in direct contact with the image surface.

So the question is....

How could the reticles (which are literally part of the image surface) in this authentic un-altered NASA photograph of the Apollo 14 LEM taken on the Moon have managed to somehow levitate themselves above the surface of the image in such a way that they were able to cast shadows back down onto the very image surface they are part of?

[RD]

How could the reticles (which are literally part of the image surface) in this authentic un-altered NASA photograph of the Apollo 14 LEM taken on the Moon have managed to somehow levitate themselves above the surface of the image in such a way that they were able to cast shadows back down onto the very image surface they are part of?

The additional distorted (curved) crosses only occur on the brightly-lit  flare-spot : the crosses elsewhere in the frame are not duplicated in this way.

A reflection of the brightly-lit "fiducials" by the curved rear element of the lens is a possible explanation for the additional distorted (curved) crosses ... 

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

[ Similar to pincushion distortion ].

[Aemilius]

Hey RD....

The additional distorted (curved) crosses only occur on the brightly-lit flare-spot : the crosses elsewhere in the frame are not duplicated in this way.

The additional distorted reticles (or crosshairs) framed by the lense flare also just happen to be in the upper left hand corner of the full image of AS14-66-9306 too, and their misalignment is entirely consistent with the corner of a carelessly placed transparency having lifted up and away from the image surface in the photograph below....

A reflection of the brightly-lit "fiducials" by the curved rear element of the lens is a possible explanation for the additional distorted (curved) crosses ...

Sorry RD, it's really not a possible explanation. In the full image of AS14-66-9305 (the preceeding photograph in the series), one can clearly see reticles in the lense flare, the brightly lit areas, the dimmer mid-range areas and even the dark areas. There's no reticular distortion or evidence of your theory of a “curved rear element of the lense” creating any kind of lense flare induced ghost reticle pin cushion effect in the region around the Sun in the photograph below....

Since the conditions under which both photographs (AS14-66-9305 and AS14-66-9306) were taken were the same, if there was anything to this notion of lense flare induced ghost reticle pin cushion effect it would have distorted the reticles in the same way and in the same region around the lense flare in both photographs, not just one.

The pin cushion effect is caused by lenses and invariably affects the image not selectively but as a whole, and lense flare from a bright light source can create ghost images of the light source and decrease image contrast.... they are two entirely different effects resulting from two entirely different causes.

There is no such thing as lense flare induced pin cushion effect in photography or optics. Nice try though.... very imaginative!

[RD]

... The pin cushion effect is caused by lenses and invariably affects the image not selectively but as a whole

I said "Similar to pincushion distortion".  I wasn't suggesting it was a lensing effect. I said "reflection" from the curved rear lens element : a lens surface can act like a curved mirror.

I did point out in "Reply #169" that the additional crosses only occur on the bright flare spot,  so not a lensing effect which would occur elsewhere on the image.

To repeatedly interpret physical phenomena you don't comprehend as evidence of fraud is evidence of paranoia. Attempting to reason with a paranoid person is an exercise in futility.

[Aemilius]

I said "Similar to pincushion distortion". I wasn't suggesting it was a lensing effect. I said "reflection" from the curved rear lens element : a lens surface can act like a curved mirror.

Have it your way then.... similar to pincushion distortion. Whatever you were suggesting, it doesn't change the fact that your credulity straining “possible explanation” involving some heretofore unknown optical effect is not an explanation at all, it's just an unsupported theory because you've provided no links, articles or precedent setting examples that could elevate it above that lowly designation.   

I did point out in "Reply #169" that the additional crosses only occur on the bright flare spot, so not a lensing effect which would occur elsewhere on the image.

Whatever you pointed out, it doesn't change the fact that in two consecutive photographs of the LEM (AS14-66-9305 and AS14-66-9306), which were both taken under the same conditions, this novel lense flare induced ghost reticle pincushion-like effect would have occurred in the same way and in the same region around the lense flare in both photographs, not just one.
 

To repeatedly interpret physical phenomena you don't comprehend as evidence of fraud is evidence of paranoia. Attempting to reason with a paranoid person is an exercise in futility.

The fact of the matter is that whether you like it or not, the photograph showing the misaligned and distorted hovering reticles and the shadows they cast (AS14-66-9306) is absolutely consistent with the corner of a carelessly placed transparency having lifted up and away from the image surface....

....and I can prove it. It took about three minutes to accurately replicate the conditions that can result in the appearance of this form of defect in a graphic image....

In order to show my assertion to be an eroneous interpretation of the photographic evidence you'll have to come up with a more plausible alternative interpretation of it than an unsupported theory about some mysterious unknown lense flare induced ghost reticle pincushion-like effect. You simply haven't done that at all, not even close, and my refusal to immediately buy in to your narrative has you again resorting to malicious insinuations.

It's all fine though RD.... I've clearly refuted every eroneous “explanation” you've come up with along with all the assertions you made to support them and not once did you try to defend any of them.

[dlorde]

Here's that video I promised about the video technology of the late 1960's:

Moon Landings Faked? Film maker says not!

[Weber]

... Surely it must be a simple task to find just ONE photo without the terrain line? Just ONE? How hard can it be to find just ONE?

It was quite easy : it only took a few minutes to find three ,
 ( presumably faked by some other method by some other Hollywood type , newbielink:http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47147.msg423817#msg423817 [nonactive] maybe ?)

newbielink:http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47147.msg423869#msg423869 [nonactive] if you ask me politely  , ( that means saying "please" ), and promise never to post in this forum again,
I will post the pictures here and give links to the NASA webpages where I found them.

PS
the " Scotchlite" screen technique you've mentioned here can only be placed a couple of meters behind the actor , (see newbielink:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law [nonactive] for the reason why)   ...


newbielink:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_projection_effect [nonactive]

So newbielink:http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47147.msg423825#msg423825 [nonactive] it's simply not physically possible.

[ To fake distant backgrounds Hollywood used to use something called " newbielink:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matte_painting [nonactive]" ]

As I understand, the distant backgrounds where projected onto a huge dome shaped screen, with the astronauts on a stage set in front of it, and then they used a fisheye camera lens to get the projected fake distant backgrounds right, that's why the shadows in the foreground (on the stage set) are so distorted, like this

[RD]

.. the shadows in the foreground (on the stage set) are so distorted, like this

shadows appearing to converge are normal, not evidence of fakery, see ...


http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moon_landing_hoax#Shadows

[dlorde]

I guess if one's prepared to believe more than half the planet is involved in a conspiracy (for Apollo, the Manned Space Flight Network and Deep Space Network tracking and relay stations alone involved USA, Canada, Mexico, Kiribati, Australia, Tanzania, England, Nigeria, Spain, and more, also ships in the Indian and Pacific oceans), you're likely to see hoaxes and conspiracies everywhere... I'm waiting for Concorde, the supersonic passenger airliner, that first flew the year Armstrong set foot on the moon, and was in commercial service for nearly 30 years, to be called a hoax...

[Weber]

As I understand, the distant backgrounds where projected onto a huge dome shaped screen, with the astronauts on a stage set in front of it, and then they used a fisheye camera lens to get the projected fake distant backgrounds right, that's why the shadows in the foreground (on the stage set) are so distorted, like this
newbielink:http://i58.tinypic.com/27xp6dt.jpg [nonactive]

shadows appearing to converge are normal, not evidence of fakery, see ...
newbielink:http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moon_landing_hoax#Shadows [nonactive]

Yes, I know that

The whole thing started with Stanley Kubrick and Arthur Clarke seeing the film "To the Moon and Beyond" on a big dome screen at the New York World’s Fair in 1964. The film was made by a company in Los Angeles called Graphic Films, who were doing films about the space program – the American space program, particularly the Apollo program.

After that in 1965, they all came together with the Senior Administrator for the Apollo project George Mueller, in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) British Studios in Borehamwood, England, to make two films, APOLLO 11 and A SPACE ODYSSEY, at the time called "Moonshot" and "Journey Beyond the Stars".

[RD]

As I understand, the distant backgrounds where projected onto a huge dome shaped screen ...
... make two films, APOLLO 11 and A SPACE ODYSSEY, at the time called "Moonshot" and "Journey Beyond the Stars".

I think you mean cinerama films which were viewed by the audience, projected onto the inside of a dome. 
Domes were not required for the creation of such films , just for their viewing.