It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Studio setting on Apollo 12 image ?

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 11:41 AM
link   
If it was scanned it could be the negative mount. Scan the negative then reverse it and you have a digital photo. I do it all the time with old negatives.

mikell




posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by COOL HAND
 


One of the reasons people question it is because of things like this video

As long as things like this are out there people will have doubts

(sorry embedding has been disabled for this video by the request of the owner)



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   
While I believe 100% that we went to and actually landed on the moon, I do have a question about the reflection on the astronauts face sheild.

While the horizon is clearly visible, what's the relflection in the lower right-hand corner of his sheild showing?



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrPenny
It hasn't been explicitly stated, but it is certainly being hinted at with the very title of the thread.

In your opinion the OP may have hinted that we have not been to the moon, however, in my opinion it hasn't been hinted at all. I personally don't know how you could imply that the OP was claiming that we had not been to the moon, when he was asking about a possibly picture anomaly.

MrPenny
Like me....COOL HAND inferred exactly what the OP was implying.

Wow, ok. It's great that both of you presume to know what the OP was implying by asking a question that did not imply your presumption.

Perhaps you should ask the OP if he was implying anything, instead of presuming that you know what he was implying?



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Intelearthling
While I believe 100% that we went to and actually landed on the moon, I do have a question about the reflection on the astronauts face sheild. While the horizon is clearly visible, what's the relflection in the lower right-hand corner of his sheild showing?

I agree.. something doesn't add up with the reflection in the shield.




The above close up is a zoom and crop version of this hi-res photo located
HERE Hi-Res photo

Also, if indeed the other chest-mounted camera is on the astronaut taking the photo... errr.. where's the astronaut in the reflection? And what is that spheroid shaped object in the center? And why is there a illumination at the end of the supposed shadow (to the right of the spheroid looking object)?

So many darn questions...

Johnny



[edit on 10-1-2008 by JohnnyAnonymous]



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Intelearthling and reply to post by JohnnyAnonymous
 

I don’t know what photo you all are talking about at this point, its obviously not the photo that the OP was asking about though as you cannot see anything in his visor at that distance.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 03:00 AM
link   
Certainly, Armstrong ran into difficulty accepting praise of Mission. Edgar Mitchel began recalling some unusual Apollo stuff from as ealy as 1995 -- publicly.
John Lear say's Apollo made it to the Moon and landed For now I Disagree, but disagree to a very lesser intuition where solid Space professionals say & argue it really happened,'I'm not convinced a landing took place. a mock-up landing to then, convince the USSR

But why is N. Armstrong so silent and at the odd time when speaking, talking in what seems riddles?

Dallas



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Badge01

Originally posted by COOL HAND
Do you really think that the government is that stupid where they would post a picture that shows proof they faked the landings?

Give it up, we landed on the moon. Stop wasting people's time with these rediculous claims.


If you removed all the "rediculous" claims on ATS' Aliens and UFOs forum, well, there wouldn't really be much to read, would there?

What might seem ridiculous to you might be worth pursuing, if only to clarify what's going on. NASA has already admitted that they might have reshot some photos. (Brian O'Leary - NASA could have falsified some portion of the video and photographs of the Moon landings to replace those damaged or lost during the actual mission). That doesn't provide any proof, though it is intriguing.

Anyone is certainly free to skip all posts related to the Moon landing, you know - thus it's only wasting your time if you click on one.




[edit on 9-1-2008 by Badge01]

I had to read this three times to make sure I understood!

If NASA have stated what you have written then all they are doing is covering themselves (with a pre emprive explanation) in case any photographs appear that are clearly faked. What I find astonishing is that anyone would rather believe such utter bull# from NASA rather then the bleedin obvious : a fake photograph is proof of a NASA cover up NOT a NASA lost photos cock up.

Anyone who believes that NASA explanation is gullable beyond comprehension!



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 05:03 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


internos posted the same pic in a higher resolution. it's here



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by Intelearthling and reply to post by JohnnyAnonymous
 

I don’t know what photo you all are talking about at this point, its obviously not the photo that the OP was asking about though as you cannot see anything in his visor at that distance.


Ahem..
You need to recheck my post above my friend..
That zoom and crop is from the hi-res photo that we are talking about..
But to make it easier, I added a link so that you can go directly to the hi-res for comparison..



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyAnonymous
 


Wow! Then what the heck is this frame? Like the shot taken from the window of a 1928 Ford convertible!!



Courtesy: eol/JSC/NASA

Seriously, that reflection in the visor is strange!



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 07:57 AM
link   
Can someone explain to me the absolutely huge sun in this picture?

Anyone know of a comparable shot like this taken on earth--that is, ostensible subjects in far mid-distance, but the sun taking up 1/10 of the frame?

And if it's so enormous, how did they get any decent exposure at all pointing the lens directly into it?



[edit on 10-1-2008 by gottago]



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by gottago
 


Good point! But that's probably due to lens flare accentuated due to slight over-exposure to brighten the background a little. And NO! I don't think that's a well lit UFO!!


Cheers!



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 10:57 AM
link   
My first impression is that the image being discussed is a photograph and the top edge is the edge of a print. I'm not sure about the source of the image though so I'm not sure if my impression accurate or not. My .02 anyway.

As for "Did we go to the Moon?" I believe we did, but because of what we found there NASA faked video and photographs to hide the truth. The truth being that there are alien artifacts (possibly aliens themselves) already there.

Peace,
Jammer



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 12:35 PM
link   
if you look at the edges of the high res pic that internos (thans for posting it btw) posted, you can see that the camera itself seems to be inside something. it could be that the camera was inside a protective casing similar to the ones used when scuba diving. the edges are clearly visible and you can see stress cracks along the plexi/glass (really dont know what material they use). also the object that looks like a lamp on the high res looks like dirt. does anyone know what type of camera they use?



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghostryder21
if you look at the edges of the high res pic that internos (thans for posting it btw) posted, you can see that the camera itself seems to be inside something. it could be that the camera was inside a protective casing similar to the ones used when scuba diving. the edges are clearly visible and you can see stress cracks along the plexi/glass (really dont know what material they use). also the object that looks like a lamp on the high res looks like dirt. does anyone know what type of camera they use?

Hasselblad 500EL, modified in various ways specifically for apollo.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyAnonymous
 


I can't help thinking that he big pyramidal shadow on the right side of the visor might be one of these:



As for the bright spot in the center of the visor, maybe it's Kubrick's trailer, seen on end.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ilali
is this the ceiling of a studio or some sort of scanning artifacts?!


Why is it that so much of the "evidence" of Apollo fakes are found on the absolute worst photos? Something that looks like it fell on the floor and the dog chewed on it. It seems to me that the clearest photos would be hardest to disguise things in.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 05:04 PM
link   
thanks for the info ngchunter

after trying to find some info on the camera all i can find is that it was heavily modified by NASA for use in space and ease of the user. i still say it could be encased in something that would cause the way it looks.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 05:26 PM
link   
I in fact believe (without any specific evidence here) that some of the missions time lines where possibly replaced with contrived imagery and data to cover military mission objectives in the timelines that could be scrutinized later. Like now.

Yet I can see that when the transparency negative was exposed by the then common projector (I used these to make prints from 2.25" formats in a photo lab) that the projector did not crop the metal transparency frame. This is common and usually cropped later. Many originals are not cropped in an archive so if needed any image lost in cropping are still there.

This is the edges of the metal transparency holder made to digitize negatives or make prints. Reverse the image to negative and it will be more clear.

I was far more interested in the rectangular shape in the orbital on the German site. Going back there next.

If anyone wants translations, it is easy.

Go to Babelfish

Clip the text and paste it in and it automatically translates, and very well. I use it for my European publishers to communicate in their language. Very handy tool.

ZG

[edit on 1/10/2008 by ZeroGhost]



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join