John Lear's Moon Pictures on ATS

reply to post by zorgon


I think that Buddhasystem provides a decent response (along with whoever said it first, right above him). The astronaut is wearing a bright white suit, and halo artifact seems to be what you would expect.

However, most often I have seen this type of effect portray itself as a darkening around the object (think about the TV transmissions of the Apollo landing....the halo's are so dark you can barely make out anything).

Further, one would expect NASA to latch onto this mundane explanation as their primary excuse. Since they avoided the explanation, that would seem to indicate that they either KNOW that it isn't a halo on the film, or because admitting it would betray some other pseudo-secret they have.

Did they bother to measure the static electricity on the astronauts on the surface of the moon? Could this not be plasma buildup, as an artifact of the materials their suits were made of? We know that NASA was acutely aware of the electrical nature of our own atmosphere (as evidenced by some of the LEO material we have seen). But did they fully understand the electrical nature of our solar system when the Apollo mission was run?

I wonder if it could be duplicated.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
However, most often I have seen this type of effect portray itself as a darkening around the object (think about the TV transmissions of the Apollo landing....the halo's are so dark you can barely make out anything).

It's totally different physics. With film, the "leakage" of the recorded signal to adjacent areas (halo) should be of same nature as the object itself. In old films, there was an actual reflection and diffusion of light within the emulsion, hence illuminated areas generated somewhat illuminated areas around themselves. With more modern film, this is rectified, but according to the quote I posted, there is still some leakage due to film chemistry, I suppose.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


I also thought that it could be an electrical effect, but one of the photos, the one that has the astronaut near the camera, shows that glowing effect only on the leg of the astronaut and not on the rest of the suit, so I think it may have been something on the lens.

Also, the photos after and before show a similar effect, even when only the ground is visible.

Originally posted by nightsider2007
did you people notice that the astronauts have a white suit, that is also most likely very reflective?

No I never noticed that

so, combine the two and you get the halo thing which is just overexposed film caused by the sun reflecting off of the astronaut.

And you explanation why this is only seen on THIS set out of all the other 'white suit' images is?

Your explanation why NASA on the same page says
Image 6813
"The blue 'fog' is do to a dust smudge which first shows up on 6813."
Image 6822
"Note that the blue coloration at the top right is undoubtedly an artifact."
(I guess they are just teasing us huh? 'artifact' indeed )
Image 6826
It's a blue glow around the astronaut in 6818, again in 6826, a discoloration in other frames, affecting clarity in most, and it's not gone again until 6853 (back in the LM). Whatever the phenomenon is, it has a varying impact on color based on the brightness of the central object in the image.


As Tex said why not use the easy excuse like you guys?
Also the 'glow' increases dramatically in intensity from the first image 6813 where it is barely noticeable on the astronaut and not at all on the brighter object in the fore ground, and then later its an intense blue just before its gone...

To MR Furry...

Well if it WAS a plasma buildup he is lucky the next frame didn't show THIS..






And yes they were aware of the electrostatic effects... Remember the document I sent you from 1964 dealing with electro magnetic shielding on our space craft?

Originally posted by zorgon
Image 6822
"Note that the blue coloration at the top right is undoubtedly an artifact."
(I guess they are just teasing us huh? 'artifact' indeed

)

It's kind of amazing that conspiracy theorists often say that the Moon pictures with astronauts etc are too perfect to be true, that the extreme conditions of the lunar surface would have had influence on film etc. When such distortions become apparent, all of a sudden it's a conspiracy and the pictures are too bad to be true. Jeez. Just what exactly content of imperfections do you expect?

Image 6826
It's a blue glow around the astronaut in 6818, again in 6826, a discoloration in other frames, affecting clarity in most, and it's not gone again until 6853 (back in the LM). Whatever the phenomenon is, it has a varying impact on color based on the brightness of the central object in the image.

Well yeah, varying degree of overexposure will have varying effect on the final picture. What else is new?

Well if it WAS a plasma buildup he is lucky the next frame didn't show THIS..

Please explain to me the nature of this plasma and how exactly that plasma builds up, unless you just slipped in a couple of words to sound scientific.


[edit on 13-11-2007 by buddhasystem]

As to "Lens Flare" I bet NASA is smart enough not to use that excuse because the camera is a Hasselblad 70mm with a HEXAGONAL shutter...

Ergo the "lens flare" would look like this in the infamous Hoagland image..



And here it is again....




A series of rounded hexagons...



And again...




Apollo lens flares are Hexagonal

[edit on 13-11-2007 by zorgon]

Originally posted by zorgon

As to "Lens Flare" I bet NASA is smart enough not to use that excuse because the camera is a Hasselblad 70mm with a HEXAGONAL shutter...
..................................

wow.

your last post has made absolutely no sense whatsoever...

of course its not lens flare! so why would you even take the time to write this post?

zorgon: "i have this weird photo of an astronaut with a halo around him"

people: "yeah, its caused by the sun reflecting of of the suits and messing with the film"

zorgon: "ummmmm, no its not! and, and, its a good thing that the evil nasa didnt use the lens flare explanation, 'cause, you know, if they did, i would like totally be all over that! and i have some more photos! HA, take that!"



but hey, what ever makes you happy.....



[edit on 14-11-2007 by nightsider2007]

Zorgon, thanks for posting the Hoagland's lunar pics. I always thought this material would be concentrating on exploiting and exaggerating various artifacts, and you just proved me right. Glass dome? Glass dome my _$$. I was into b/w photography when I was in my teens, and developed my own film. Trust me, there was weirder stuff than that in some frames Now, take me to your leader.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Zorgon, thanks for posting the Hoagland's lunar pics. I always thought this material would be concentrating on exploiting and exaggerating various artifacts, and you just proved me right. Glass dome? Glass dome my _$$. I was into b/w photography when I was in my teens, and developed my own film. Trust me, there was weirder stuff than that in some frames

Now, take me to your leader.

Do you realize that this last post of your has no relation at all with the concept that Zorgon was trying to explain?

I guess not.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Zorgon, thanks for posting the Hoagland's lunar pics. I always thought this material would be concentrating on exploiting and exaggerating various artifacts, and you just proved me right. Glass dome?

Actually its not the hexagonal flare that Hoagland says is the glass dome, but the 'structure' of the shy in the background.... But I will go into that in the other thread... One thread about his stuff is enough

I was into b/w photography when I was in my teens, and developed my own film. Trust me, there was weirder stuff than that in some frames

I don't doubt THAT for a minute

[edit on 14-11-2007 by zorgon]

Zogon,

will you explain the nature of plasma and its build-up that you wrote about earlier? Where is the plasma building up? Why?

Sorry for such a stupid question (I know, no question is stupid), but how do one modify one's profile with a pic (avatar) and a signature?

Thanks

reply to post by weedwhacker


Click on the button at the top of the page that says "MemCenter", it will take to a page where you can change many settings, including avatar image (remembering the maximum size) and signature.

reply to post by ArMaP


Thanks...ArMaP...

I love SP, BTW!!

Cheers

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by sherpa

 

Just some words, but I know the letters, and the last words look like:

konturi brokok (punktir)

and that makes me think that the dashed line (punktir?) is the contour (konturi?) of something.

Hi ArMaP
Here is the translation
"solid line - radiation sensors' line of sight. And range (broken line)."
контуы бровок (probably a special term) - In this case most likely means range, and contour of where the sensitivity ends.

бровок = brows as in eye brows

Going thru my moon pics collection, I came to the conclusion that the anomoly in the photo is not "tube" shaped as I had initially thought. Now that I've gotten a little more "better" (yeah right) with these enhancing skills, I'm thinking its some type of flange or it may have a triangular shape. I'm basing that on the position of the shadow or appearance of. Obviously, behind it is a rock. Now, most think and say you're all crazy for for just believing there's crap other than what we've been told up there on the moon. Well, maybe. But I never said it might be alien. No one ever really asked me wahat I believe personally.....
It could be alien, however based on recent threads citing older moon rovers and what not, is it possible this is left behind technology of ours or our cosmonaut neighbors , just blown to pieces? Just looking for ideas, and opinions.



www.history.nasa.gov...

reply to post by GEX


Thanks GEX you seemed to have put the lid on the dotted line for us.

It's useful to have someone who can read Russian here.

Welcome to ATS

I have this link, i don´t remember when i found it, a few years ago.

Hope you find it of interest.

BBC is the source, so at first hand, reliable source.

Sorry for my english.


news.bbc.co.uk...

Prehistoric Moon map unearthed

A map of the Moon 10-times older than anything known before has been found carved into stone at one of Ireland's most ancient and mysterious Neolithic sites.

It has been identified by Dr Philip Stooke, of the University of Western Ontario, Canada.

What puzzled him greatly was that there was no recorded map of the Moon older than about 500 years. "I simply could not believe this," he told BBC News Online. "I felt there just had to be an older map somewhere."

"I was amazed when I saw it....() "It's all there in the carving. You can see the overall pattern of the lunar features, from features such as Mare Humorun through to Mare Crisium."

Lots of information, amazing photos.... I think I have learned a lot.... wait... I think I am confused a lot now

reply to post by Orion437

Prehistoric Moon map unearthed

Well I hate to say it but all I see is a series of arcs. I think if I was a, (funny they don't give Dr Stookes job title) I would be hesitant to make that statement without a little more evidence, maybe there are not a lot of people who specialise in that area.