Studio setting on Apollo 12 image ?, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 9 times

reply posted on 10-1-2008 @ 05:33 PM by ZeroGhost

reply to post by gottago

Yes as Mike indicated, a lens flair.

The exposures are so hard to make when the sky is black and the surface of anything is reflecting harsh light that usually without polarizing filters any light source will be way out of safe exposure.

Try shooting a picture with your digital of someone with the Sun in frame. Not only will you not see anything but a silhouette of the person, but the Sun will be over exposed and many times larger and throwing flares anywhere your lens is not shielded.

ZG

reply posted on 10-1-2008 @ 05:37 PM by miguelbmx

Wonder why they'd crop it?

perhaps to keep people from thinking the images were taken in a studio.

[edit on 10-1-2008 by miguelbmx]

[edit on 10-1-2008 by miguelbmx]

reply posted on 10-1-2008 @ 06:09 PM by archangelgabriel

[edit on 10-1-2008 by archangelgabriel]

reply posted on 10-1-2008 @ 06:13 PM by archangelgabriel

Originally posted by bkcrt
Just for the record, the pictures could be shot in a studio here on Earth but that does not mean we didn't go to the moon. Maybe the actual pictures were too sensitive to show to the public and they made less sensitive ones here.
[edit on 9-1-2008 by bkcrt]

Why? Is showing us Moon dust sensitive material? Would we all panic and run amok if NASA showed us the, dare I say it...MOON?

reply posted on 10-1-2008 @ 06:17 PM by the b rain

I have read hundreds of pages of data that I barely understand on physics and photography and i have seen all the videos of the moon mission as well as the angry commentary from the (now old) astronauts defending that they landed and it still all doesn't add up. If they really got there 39 years ago, then why isn't it full of space condos by now. I mean usually people here cant wait to completely exploit the wonders of science and nature. Money? maybe but that is only a temporary barrier.

[edit on 10-1-2008 by the b rain]

reply posted on 10-1-2008 @ 06:39 PM by archangelgabriel

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)?

[edit on 10-1-2008 by JohnnyAnonymous]

OK... lesson in physics, lens curvature, photography to follow. Sit up, pay attention.

You're asking where the photographer is. He's right where he should be, and yes, he looks like a sphere. Look at the face cover. It's curved. Look at the shadow in front of the astronaut. It goes towards his left. Now look at the shadow in the face cover. It goes almost straight out and is definitely not as angled as the ground shadow. This is all related to the curvature of the mask. With me so far?

OK, now taking what we know now about the curvature of the face mask, and the shadow placement and direction, the photographer is the small spheroid object. We see the photographer as a small reflection, taking into account his distance from the subject. How do I know?

Look at the ground shadow again. Notice how long it is in proportion to the astronaut's body. Yet it only shows up to the crotch. The remainder of the shadow is outside the shot. That makes the shadows very long indeed, at least 10 meters if not more. And yet it looks so small in the face cover. Only a mere probable 6 inches.

So then, how small do you think the photographer would look in the reflection, taking into account his distance from the subject? It very well stands to reason that the so called "sphere" is the photographer himself, and yes, considering the curvature of the lens, he would not look like a human being. End of lesson.

reply posted on 10-1-2008 @ 08:36 PM by sandwhichlee

Ok for what reason would they spend tons of money to launch a ship to space stay up there for three months then come back without going to the moon then make a fake video in a studio just to cost even more money when the moon isn't even that far away and we have the technology to land there. I'm pretty sure we could land on mars if we really wanted..... so why would they make hoax pictures and videos

reply posted on 10-1-2008 @ 09:09 PM by defcon5

Originally posted by JohnnyAnonymous
Ahem..
You need to recheck my post above my friend..

I don’t particularly appreciate the sarcasm considering that the photo you had initially linked had a big red “X” on it, and the link sent me to a error page. I see that you have since corrected the problem however.

As to the picture, you must remember that the faceplate is not a flat mirror but it has a pretty radical curve to it. The big shadow in the center is the astronauts own shadow which can be seen on the ground to the lower right. You can correlate this on the even further zoomed in version by the split in the shadow cast by his feet, and the split in the shadow on the ground. He is also carrying a experiential package which can be seen reflecting on either side as well. The white dot in the center is the astronaut who took the photo.

reply posted on 11-1-2008 @ 02:55 AM by mentalmidget

I'm confused. I can't see any aliens or ufos in any of these pictures. And what looks like a ceiling is really just the way the light source is reflecting. Now, just what that light source may be, I have no idea, but.......well, I guess it could be a ufo............or even an alien for that matter! I see the correlation now! And I did find a great new link for translating languages. So it was worth it just as well.

Thanks.

See ya later.

reply posted on 11-1-2008 @ 03:12 AM by mikesingh

Originally posted by archangelgabriel

Originally posted by bkcrt
Just for the record, the pictures could be shot in a studio here on Earth but that does not mean we didn't go to the moon. Maybe the actual pictures were too sensitive to show to the public and they made less sensitive ones here.

Why? Is showing us Moon dust sensitive material? Would we all panic and run amok if NASA showed us the, dare I say it...MOON?

No arch, that was not bkcrt's point. What he probably meant was either:

1. Alien UFO bases on the Moon

OR

2. Black Ops Project bases there.

So instead of letting the proverbial cat out of the bag by showing the actual pics, they dish out images taken in a studio instead.

IMHO, the second reason is more likely! But it's all speculation at this juncture!

Cheers!

reply posted on 11-1-2008 @ 04:30 AM by IvanZana

I was thinking the uncropped image was not scanned but copied using a camera from above having the picture illuminated from underneath.

And what we are seeing is the edge of the light table.

And if not, then it the seam to a major curtain backdrop.

reply posted on 11-1-2008 @ 07:14 AM by Zemouk

Whatever this is, it seems extremely odd that that 'hi-res' photo has been taken off the Nasa website all of a sudden... Which has now got me interested in this subject!

reply posted on 11-1-2008 @ 07:23 AM by eRauzed

Originally posted by Zemouk
Whatever this is, it seems extremely odd that that 'hi-res' photo has been taken off the Nasa website all of a sudden... Which has now got me interested in this subject!

Exactly what I was thinking. I just went to have a look and I got a 550, Ireally hope someone saved the picture to their hard drive.

reply posted on 11-1-2008 @ 10:45 AM by manalien

reply to post by ilali

HI ilali and everybody at ATS.
This is my first post ever on this web site.
I have however been observing this website among others for a couple of years now and I will be very honest.. Its a great discussion forum and a fantastic platform through-out the site on all topics for people who can and
like to "think outside the box". I have noticed there are many here within this community who have a real interest in providing or seeking facts and information regarding some very important and some not so important issues on this web site. There are also those who just want to have a good laugh and establish contact (of earthly nature) within their own field of interest. Unfortunately there is also the obvious minority who are just here to confuse and mislead people within this website and other websites too who simply work for "the powers that be" and have the task of doing so as they maybe devious, brainwashed, or simply blind and naive to the truth and real
facts and totally ignorant to the consequences of their disinformation which is purely designed to keep the genuine "truth seekers in the dark" but hey.. thats freedom of speech and it is a part of a democratic society and thats ok.
As for the one and only victim of disinformation "the truth itself"...I can only give the advice that "he who searches shall find the truth..."
I am a longtime and degree qualified IT and Media/Telecommunications specialist working for one of the worlds largest IT/Media and Telecommunications companies. My many years of work experience also covers most audio video and multimedia production software/hardware and applications of which I possess adequate programs which I required as everyday working tools. I would go as far as to say I am literate in many forms of IT and computer sciences and technology and have been actively studying various phenomena over the past 30 years.. As I seek the truth...
In recent times I have discovered and been supplied with an ever increasing amount of very unusual but interesting information, some of which I would like to share on this website. I am a straight up and honest person and will only submit what I have on information which has been to the best of my knowledge, screened by other professional people I know and trust for many years before I post any nonsense and make a fool of myself. It is my intention to deliver this information not as pure facts if they are not 100% facts (In which case I would be able to provide proof) but as inspiring thoughts to be discussed within this community and everybody should judge and find out for themselves if the information is relevant or not.

Information lead number one:
In the picture submitted by ilali from a NASA web site I discovered something after magnifying the picture posted due to noted discrepancies of some strange artifacts in the (original):

I took a closer look at this picture without the obvious doctoring.
www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a12/AS12-46-6806.jpg

What I found shocked me to the extent of having to pass this on.
If you have the tools to blow up this picture and look very carefully into the reflection of the Space helmet you will see a something that does not add up.
Using Adobe Photoshop and increasing the picture size up to 200cm (5660 Pixels) and using the magnifying tool at 200- 400%
What you will see is!

FACT:
A rectangular reflection with a source of light which is obviously BEHIND THE POINT OF THE EXPOSURE/POSITION OF CAMERA and/of off to one side of camera position.

QUESTION:
Is it showing a CLEAR RECTANGULAR WINDOW with a light from WITHIN a ROOM!?
IN THAT ROOM and behind that WINDOW is there "what seems to be" possibly a Female person sitting behind what seems to be a consul very similar too a recording/film studio
For those who have no such tools I will post the blow ups for you to see in a few..

reply posted on 11-1-2008 @ 11:45 AM by ilali

hi manalien and welcome on ats! i myself am new here and just trying to wrap my mind around things, staying open-minded as information comes out..

could you please post a blow-up of the anomaly?

also you could use the "higher" high resolution pic from here:
external image

i am really looking forward on this

thanks

reply posted on 11-1-2008 @ 01:08 PM by internos

reply to post by Zemouk

reply to post by eRauzed

I've found the hi-res version here:
eol.jsc.nasa.gov...
AS12, roll 46 frame 6806
i've made a request for the hi-res version from here,
/25ekj7
and the photo was available some minutes after my request, at this address
eol.jsc.nasa.gov...

I think that they publish them just by request and temporarily: this would explain the mystery, since the image is now available again after another request that i've submitted some minutes minutes ago.