Nasa Apollo Moon pictures take a bath

Originally posted by promomag
Does everyone not see the obvious shadow does not match what is in the visor?

I know it is misleading, but his visor is curved in such a way that everything looks directly in front of him...Had me confused for a bit too...



Although his reflection does look too skinny to be correct.

Funny funny pictures.

[edit on 21-6-2007 by biggie smalls]

I have to echo IMAdamnALIEN's thought's on this one. "Van Allen Radiation Belt!!" Aaaaaiiiiggghhhh!!!!

Originally posted by carnival_of_souls2047
I have to echo IMAdamnALIEN's thought's on this one. "Van Allen Radiation Belt!!" Aaaaaiiiiggghhhh!!!!

Its not like humans are vaporized when they move through this region...

It probably just hurts like a B and leaves lasting effects.

If satellites can go through it, I'm sure we can with enough protection.

Originally posted by biggie smalls

Originally posted by promomag
Does everyone not see the obvious shadow does not match what is in the visor?

I know it is misleading, but his visor is curved in such a way that everything looks directly in front of him...Had me confused for a bit too...

Thats what Ive been trying to say! Its curved not flat.

Originally posted by promomag
Does everyone not see the obvious shadow does not match what is in the visor?



farm2.static.flickr.com...

I think that shadow does match the way it should look. The small man in the visor is the man taking the photo so his shadow should be behind him and the shadow at the bottom of the subjects visor is his shadow running towards the photographer. I think you have it mixed up.

Everything is where is should be, people only see what they want to see.

Sorry I don't see how the shadow could be that skewed in a photo off a slightly curved visor reflection, if the reflection astronauts shadow is completely skewed, so should the astronaut be. Also, if the visor was going to skew the shadow it would bend the shadow to the curve of the visor, not move or remove the shadow.

Hello everyone,

I've been reading these boards for quite some time, and it's been quite interesting, but up until today, didn't think I'd have anything to say....Until this thread/photo caught my attention.

I have a question to ask, which may be completely off the wall, but; could this reflection be of someone else in a space suit standing behind the photographer that is causing the reflection? The photographer is ??wearing black?? or something dark (no space suit necessary for photographers?), and the space suit is quite a reflective white color.

I was playing with my camera and a mirror with my light source behind me, but I was only capturing me, the mirror, and what was behind me reflected in the mirror, not everything that is also behind the mirror reflected back. This was not a domed mirror, but still the same, it strikes me as quite odd that the reflection in the convex mirror is reflecting an image that is behind the mirror.

To me, this makes it more of a mirror image of someone standing behind the camera and tripod.

If I am completely off the wall, please let me know. I hope I explained my thoughts so people understand what I'm trying to say.

Ok, I see, you're right, I do have it mixed up. My bad.

OK, I don't claim to be an expert at anything here , but I have a question. There are two men present, one taking a photo of the other. the one doing the 'taking' is reflected in the visor.

How can he be reflected in the visor taking the picture when it looks like his back is turned over halfway towards the object person he is supposed to be photographing?

How would a chest mounted camera take a picture from that angle to the subject?

Originally posted by Shar_Chi
ahaha if u thought the above was good... explain this one away...

I thought so as well.

But, first I must say that I believe the bulk of the moon missions were faked. However, I do not believe the pictures in question here are fakes.

Here's an example of deceiving landscape/perspective. First the guys are not the same hieght, as demonstrated in the upper left hand side (red lines). Second thte landscape is not flat demostrated below. If you look at the angle of the light source (yellow line) and the angle of the cast shadows you can see how the the shadow from the guy on the right would cover more ground producing an effect of a longer shadow.



edit: To let everyone know that I know this is not anywhere close to being to proportion, but I'm just trying to communicate the idea.

[edit on 21-6-2007 by tyranny22]

I think the shadows match up. The visor is spherical and warps the reflection.

Although the light doesn't seem to be coming from a sun thats for sure..Its apparent in these images that the light is coming from man-made spot lights. The sun produces a even spread of light which doesn't have hotspots, which is indicative of a spot light...I wouldn't be surprised if NASA decides to retouch this image again for asthetic reasons...

Originally posted by Freezer
I wouldn't be surprised if NASA decides to retouch this image again for asthetic reasons...

Yeah only after ATSers officially raped their editing skills...

They are probably browsing their archives to see if anything else doesn't add up and either deleting them or changing them sufficiently...

It doesn't matter, one day the truth will come forward on its own accord.

There is nothing odd about these photo's. I'll post an illustrated lesson in things like how lenses affect images, perspective, exposure, shadows, reflections on convex surfaces and how the lighting environment affects them. Anyone who believes the stuff I'm seeing about the moon photo's can not possibly have any such knowledge or they are lying for some reason. This is all really basic stuff. I'll work up the illustrations tonight in software that exactly mimics lenses and environments. I'll post it to this thread (which is in the wrong forum I think?) if it is still here.

If someone who has the information could let me know the camera used and the lens used it would be very helpful? I can then also come close to matching the distances and the lens distortion.

To answer the OP. The only difference between those photo's is the filtering. The one on the right has the most accurate color but the midrange levels have been enhanced to make detail easier to see and to reduce the stark shadows. That is done for aesthetic reason and not to trick anyone. The person who did it is quite skilled and did a good job.

I'm quiting smoking so flame me gently, please It may be tomorrow before I can get this done, so be patient please.

FYI -
Most peoples monitors are not calibrated which means you are all seeing a variety of colors that may or may not be accurate. If you want to see accurate color you have to calibrate your monitor and understand color profiles. My monitors are calibrated monthly so that what I scan or photograph exactly matches what I see on the monitor or print. If an image has an embedded profile I can see exactly what the person, scanner or camera saw.

Originally posted by tyranny22
Here's an example of deceiving landscape/perspective.

you could be right, i did some more experiments in the sun this arvo and the guy with the shorter shadow couldve been in a slight ditch, or in front of a slight rise. i set some paper under 2 identical tin cans in the arvo sunlight, then lifted the edge and sure enough it made one of the shadows shorter. also if the light source is close to the subjects then the one nearest the light source should cast the shorter shadow, not the longer one.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
There is nothing odd about these photo's.

That was my point exactly

I can't believe this thread went beyond one page based on the OP. But I'm happy that others are interested in the moon. I don't believe that we 'faked' the Apollo missions... any of them. Perhaps there were some fake photo opptys, though. I don't believe there is anything wierd about this one in the OP.

Originally posted by Shar_Chi

Originally posted by tyranny22
Here's an example of deceiving landscape/perspective.

you could be right, i did some more experiments in the sun this arvo and the guy with the shorter shadow couldve been in a slight ditch, or in front of a slight rise. i set some paper under 2 identical tin cans in the arvo sunlight, then lifted the edge and sure enough it made one of the shadows shorter. also if the light source is close to the subjects then the one nearest the light source should cast the shorter shadow, not the longer one.

I had questioned this pic before, and after studying the picture I started to notice the very small grade to the landscape and things started clicking, unfortunately. I say unfortunately because I'd love to find positive proof that the moon landings were faked. Before I convince myself of one thing I try to prove my theory wrong. Indeed this picture could still be a fake, but there is a logical explanation to it.

I'm not sure we'll ever know for sure if some of the moon missions were faked. I have a good idea some were. But, one way to know for sure is to build a friggin telesope that can see Earth down to one centimeter and point it at the moon - surely we could get a resolution from that which could see to with-in several meters on the moon. It would have to be specially built – they say we have nothing that can do that. I seriously doubt that, but I can't argue. What ever happened with GoogleMoon? I want to see the lander and rover. Then I'll be satisfied.

diy details

AS11-40-5903HR.jpg
cropped to 1024x1400

as11-40-5903.jpg
cropped to 800x1094
resized to 1024x 1400 which preserved aspect ratio

Shrunk both in half to 512x700, then pasted to make a 1024x700 picture.



The links to the areas with the photos. If not, then other links below.

AS11-40-5903HR.jpg right pic 07-09-04
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...

as11-40-5903.jpg left pic 09-17-03
spaceflight.nasa.gov...
spaceflight1.nasa.gov...


Another version is at nix.larc.nasa.gov...,
with a timestamp of 08-16-04, though it appears
to be just a blown up version of the 09-17-03 picture.

More pic sites.
images.jsc.nasa.gov...
grin.hq.nasa.gov...

Any downloader with timestamping capabilities, like wget
with the -N option, will get the file date.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
To answer the OP. The only difference between those photo's is the filtering. The one on the right has the most accurate color but the midrange levels have been enhanced to make detail easier to see and to reduce the stark shadows. That is done for aesthetic reason and not to trick anyone. The person who did it is quite skilled and did a good job.

This is the reason for the original post. Are these new high resolution scans supposed to be historically accurate, or are they just basically new marketing pics? The dirt looks like it has been washed away. Any one who has seen only the new scans see a nice clean suit.

And this leads to other questions. Are the older pics more historically accurate than the new ones. Have we ever seen the most accurately scanned pics yet?

Originally posted by tyranny22
I had questioned this pic before, and after studying the picture I started to notice the very small grade to the landscape and things started clicking, unfortunately. I say unfortunately because I'd love to find positive proof that the moon landings were faked. Before I convince myself of one thing I try to prove my theory wrong. Indeed this picture could still be a fake, but there is a logical explanation to it.

Aye, for a second I thought there was a smoking gun in clear view but if I can't admit & accept when my own theory doesn't stand up to 'hard light' then I'm just as bad as those who deceive in the first place. The whole scenario stinks to high heaven, but I won't lose sleep over it