The Apollo 12 sun is not real

The Apollo 12 sun does not look at all real. Judge for yourself.

Here are some zoomed in images of the sun and lunar landscape the astronauts took:

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-46-6766.jpg
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-46-6763.jpg
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-46-6766.jpg
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-46-6767.jpg



But when analyzed in computer software for intensity, one obtains a rather interesting result:

http://i44.tinypic.com/2lkqxl5.jpg



It would seem that the "Sun" is inconsistent in intensity, as though it contained a light bulb?

It is my feeling that the Apollo sun images are particularly damming to the credibility of the Apollo missions. If these are fake, which I believe is almost beyond doubt, then what are the chances that much of the other footage is as well?

And before anyone comes in claiming that it's a "halo" or whatever, I submit the following:

- The sun already has a halo in the original Apollo image.
- A halo around a light source is no where near as intense as the light source.
- The moon does not have the required atmosphere or conditions to create a halo.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_(optical_phenomenon):

"Halos, also known as icebows, are optical phenomena that appear near or around the Sun or Moon, and sometimes near other strong light sources such as street lights. There are many types of optical halos, but they are mostly caused by ice crystals in cold cirrus clouds located high (5.10 km, or 3.6 miles) in the upper troposphere. The particular shape and orientation of the crystals is responsible for the type of halo observed. Light is reflected and refracted by the ice crystals and may split up into colors because of dispersion, similarly to the rainbow."

Another image:



1. - Original image, levels untouched
2. - Grayscaled, BW levels intensified
3. - All RGB levels intensified
4. - Fuschia intensified
5. - Yellow intensified
6. - Blue intensified
7. - Green intensified
8. - Red intensified
9. - Orange intensified

So does anyone want to tell me why the outer middle of the sun's diameter is less intense than the center or edges?

Another image:



1. - Original image, levels untouched
2. - Grayscaled, BW levels intensified
3. - All RGB levels intensified
4. - Fuschia intensified
5. - Yellow intensified
6. - Blue intensified
7. - Green intensified
8. - Red intensified
9. - Orange intensified

So does anyone want to tell me why the outer middle of the sun's diameter is less intense than the center or edges?

I thought Warhol was dead

The camera lens does.  This is absurd Tom.  Go back to bed you're having a nightmare.

The camera lens does.  This is absurd Tom.  Go back to bed you're having a nightmare.

Why would a camera lens do that? There's no lens which would cause the sun to be inconsistent in intensity in the manner above.

Honestly, you guys just seem to be degenerating into fantasy.

We're degenerating into fantasy Tom?  Seriously?  You do know you say you live on a flat world right?

Quote from: C-Ray on January 09, 2009, 07:17:52 AM

The camera lens does.  This is absurd Tom.  Go back to bed you're having a nightmare.

Why would a camera lens do that? There's no lens which would cause the sun to be inconsistent in intensity in the manner above.

Honestly, you guys just seem to be degenerating into fantasy.

Two words:  Lens flare.

A picture of the direct sun through a lens and camera designed for normal daylight images can produce a variety of aberrations:  Lens flare is the most common and manifests itself in circles of light at different sizes to sun's disk.  (as your pictures demonstrate, with a large circle of light around the smaller sun, creating a light bulb effect)

Wikipedia even uses an Apollo picture as an example! 
Here's another clearer example.

Two words:  Lens flare.

A picture of the direct sun through a lens and camera designed for normal daylight images can produce a variety of aberrations:  Lens flare is the most common and manifests itself in circles of light at different sizes to sun's disk.  (as your pictures demonstrate, with a large circle of light around the smaller sun, creating a light bulb effect)

Wikipedia even uses an Apollo picture as an example! 
Here's another clearer example.

1.) A real Lens Flare doesn't look anything like the Apollo 12 sun. The edges of a lens flare aren't anywhere as intense as the light source. If we do a Google Image Search for "lens flare," we see absolutely nothing that looks anything like what you're saying that this is.

2.) The image on that Wikipedia page depicts an artificial lens flare:



3.) Your second so called "clearer example" of a lens flare is actually the DEFAULT PHOTOSHOP LENSFLARE

From: http://www.webdesign.org/web/photoshop/special-effects/abstract-plasma-ball.8206.html



Compared to the picture you presented as "evidence":



Looks like a Reverse Triple Fail.

You can't compare photos taken in earth's atmosphere to those taken in a much, much thinner (vacuum) atmosphere of the moon.  You also would have to know a lot more about the equipment used to take the photos, lens coatings, and filters used, angle of the sun in relation to the camera, etc. to accurately make a conclusive decision.  Whatever your point is though, I'm still not sure.

Lets try a real lens flare this time:



Adjusted with levels:



Nope. After trying several different methods of adjusting the levels for intensity, I couldn't get it to look anything like the images in the op.

Good Job Tom, you managed to not be able to produce the same results on earth that you get on the moon.  Everyone give Tom a round of applause.

Good Job Tom, you managed to not be able to produce the same results on earth that you get on the moon.  Everyone give Tom a round of applause.

What conditions should we expect on the moon to cause the sun to look like a big bright artificial light?

It only looks like a spotlight after you've manipulated it with PS!!!


(from here).

The larger red circles look remarkably like the larger circle outside the smaller one in your pictures.

Nope. After trying several different methods of adjusting the levels for intensity, I couldn't get it to look anything like the images in the op.

-That may be because the Apollo images were taken with a film camera and your other picture is digitally captured.  I think your comparing chalk with cheese.

Quote from: C-Ray on January 09, 2009, 09:23:09 AM

Good Job Tom, you managed to not be able to produce the same results on earth that you get on the moon.  Everyone give Tom a round of applause.

What conditions should we expect on the moon to cause the sun to look like a spotlight?

You are letting your heart guide your mind/eyes Tom.  When I look at that picture, I don't see a spotlight.  You are so deep into this spotlight sun, spinning moon, I don't know where the planets are on our infinite plane, model that you can't be objective about FE vs. RE anymore.

http://flickr.com/photos/11020833@N02/1026048408/

The larger red circles look remarkably like the larger circle outside the smaller one in your pictures.

No they don't. Those little red flares in your image doesn't look anything at all like the spotlight in the OP. The outer edges of those red circles should be as bright and intense as the light source. I brought down the levels of the entirety of the Apollo image evenly and the outer rim was exactly as bright as the center. Your example is completely and entirely bunk.

-That may be because the Apollo images were taken with a film camera and your other picture is digitally captured.  I think your comparing chalk with cheese.

Then please find us an artificially captured lens flare so we can test your unfounded hypothesis that film would cause the irregularities seen to make the sun look like a big studio spotlight.

Quote

http://flickr.com/photos/11020833@N02/1026048408/

The larger red circles look remarkably like the larger circle outside the smaller one in your pictures.

No they don't. Those little red flares in your image doesn't look anything at all like the spotlight in the OP. The outer edges of those red circles should be as bright and intense as the light source. I brought down the levels of the entirety of the Apollo image evenly and the outer rim was exactly as bright as the center. Your example is completely and entirely bunk.

Quote

-That may be because the Apollo images were taken with a film camera and your other picture is digitally captured.  I think your comparing chalk with cheese.

Then please find us an artificially captured lens flare so we can test your unfounded hypothesis that film would cause the irregularities seen to make the sun look like a big studio spotlight.

Look, Tom, we know you can't be this stupid, so just cut it out.  Men died trying to reach the moon, and your rantings represent an insult to their families.  My FIL manages a project NASA project studying the sun, and he laughed so hard at your BS, he almost split his pants.  The sun is not as simple as you make it out to be.

So, this must be fake as well, right?  I mean, the sun's not perfectly round as it is in real life, and it appears to be leaking - it must be a fake!

Look, Tom, we know you can't be this stupid, so just cut it out.  Men died trying to reach the moon, and your rantings represent an insult to their families.  My FIL manages a project NASA project studying the sun, and he laughed so hard at your BS, he almost split his pants.  The sun is not as simple as you make it out to be.

If he studies the sun for NASA then he should know that it's actually a big spotlight with a bulb in the middle.

Quote

Look, Tom, we know you can't be this stupid, so just cut it out.  Men died trying to reach the moon, and your rantings represent an insult to their families.  My FIL manages a project NASA project studying the sun, and he laughed so hard at your BS, he almost split his pants.  The sun is not as simple as you make it out to be.

If he studies the sun for NASA then he should know that it's actually a big artificial light source.

He doesn't 'study the sun', he manages the NASA project encompassing a spacecraft in orbit around the sun, called Ulysses.  The craft finally succumbed to the trials of space flight late last year.

"I remember when we got those first pictures of Ulysses floating out of the space shuttle Discovery's payload bay back in October of 1990 and thinking we had a great five years ahead of us," said Ed Massey, Ulysses project manager at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. "I never dared think that we would be receiving invaluable science data on a near continuous basis for more than 17 years. Ulysses has set the bar on solar science data collection quite high."

I suppose this man - with degrees from Tuskegee University and USC - after 17 years of managing a project including a spacecraft orbiting the sun - was duped, right?  Or are you calling him a liar?  He looked at your laughable evidence, and said, "I've seen several thousand images just like that" after laughing uncontrollably.

Need evidence he's my FIL?

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features-print.cfm?feature=548

There are two pics of him on this JPL/NASA site, the second (he's the first on the left), and the last.



And here he is toasting my wife (his daughter) and me at our wedding.



And here he is holding my daughter at the hospital.

How come we can try to provide images as proof, and you say its not good enough, however you try to provide images as proof, and it is perfectly fine, EVEN if it is not from NASA?

Quote

Look, Tom, we know you can't be this stupid, so just cut it out.  Men died trying to reach the moon, and your rantings represent an insult to their families.  My FIL manages a project NASA project studying the sun, and he laughed so hard at your BS, he almost split his pants.  The sun is not as simple as you make it out to be.

If he studies the sun for NASA then he should know that it's actually a big spotlight with a bulb in the middle.

Tom surely you haven't given up your belief that only the top level people at NASA know the truth.  you contradict yourself way too much to be taken seriously.

Nope. After trying several different methods of adjusting the levels for intensity, I couldn't get it to look anything like the images in the op.

Because the Sun looks completely different when filtered throught an atmosphere. I hate to say this because its stupid but FAIL.

http://happyhacker.org/gtmhh/sathack1.shtml

Use this website to help you get your own satellite into orbit. You do everything yourelf so no government interference. I did this and saw the round Earth for myself. You can do it too so now there is no excuse for your ignorance.

How come we can try to provide images as proof, and you say its not good enough, however you try to provide images as proof, and it is perfectly fine, EVEN if it is not from NASA?

Well if you haven't noticed, we're taking your proof and pointing out the discrepancies which demonstrates that it is not as it seems.

Because the Sun looks completely different when filtered throught an atmosphere. I hate to say this because its stupid but FAIL.

So the sun is inconsistent in intensity like that outside of the atmosphere? How does that work? 

Quote

How come we can try to provide images as proof, and you say its not good enough, however you try to provide images as proof, and it is perfectly fine, EVEN if it is not from NASA?

Well if you haven't noticed, we're taking your proof and pointing out the discrepancies which demonstrates that it is not as it seems.

Quote

Because the Sun looks completely different when filtered throught an atmosphere. I hate to say this because its stupid but FAIL.

So the sun is inconsistently intense like that outside of the atmosphere? How does that work? 

The sun is filtered and altered when it goes through the atmosphere. How did you not know that? You should have been able to figure that out on your own.

The sun is filtered and altered when it goes through the atmosphere. How did you not know that? You should have been able to figure that out on your own.

I'm sorry, I missed your explanation for why the sun would be inconsistent in intensity like that outside of the atmosphere.

This is incredible.

Quote

The sun is filtered and altered when it goes through the atmosphere. How did you not know that? You should have been able to figure that out on your own.

I'm sorry, I missed your explanation for why the sun would be inconsistent in intensity like that outside of the atmosphere.

Well until someone snaps a photo of both from the same camera and compares them, there really isn't anything to debate.

This is incredible.

I know

Bendy light.