Moon Landing Photo

Hey, cool post, I'm just curious if anyone knows why they named the mission's to the moon "Apollo"? Isn't Apollo affiliated with the Sun? Sorry if off topic just thought someone here might know? Thanks

So i took the OPs instructions to get to the image, after palying arond with the image, i used a colour dodge effect, which bring areas of different colours out, and i got this:

img364.imageshack.us...

I did post more but i didnt spell the confirmation code properly, and it deleted my whole post, but thats basically what i was showing the readers.

I saw something on this. They were using a huge crane to do the scenes with. It was like a shipyard crane. They had a big fake surface and black netting up, the kind of netting at a golf course. Anyway, I agree with you and it looks like the tree line behind the crane too. I'll try to find that movie again. You ever notice in the scene where the guys are skipping on the moon singing "in the merry merry month of May"? In that scene the astronaut says, "in the merry merry month of December", then chuckles and says, "Oh wait it's may"..."haha". I know that the shoots according to the movie I'm talking about was shot in December. Peace

reply to post by daddymax

---

The moon revolves around the Earth about once per month. It rotates on its axis at the rate of about one rotation per month. This is not a coincidence or a conspiracy. The moon is tidally locked with the Earth. If the moon did not rotate (or if it rotated at a different rate) all points of its surface would be visible from Earth at some time.

[edit on 6-8-2008 by Phage]

i don't want to doubt this as it seems very interesting, however; it could be the the junk data from turning the files into digital. But I wouldn't think it would make such varied shapes, :/ but depending on how the original image quality they could have been alot of junk in the black of 'space' what the scanner could have picked up on.

reply to post by Mintwithahole.

---

hey, no problem.

I've never believed that picture myself. The 'pudding shape' appears to go WAY below the horizon, very near his position.

I was using that picture to better explain the shape of the objects in the painting that a former astronaut did shortly after comming back to earth.

Cheers for your comment though, I agree that that perticular image doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

AoN

It's amazing this thread gets so much attention. Those are artefacts, not "hills"..sheesh...

You obviously ain't been around long enough

Its not that amazing, TRUST me

Ever seen one of John lears moon threads (gasp, dare i say his name )

I think he holds the record for the looOOOngest thread ever. Currently 264 pages.

There are MANY anomalies on the moon. Keep an open mind dude, shooting a hundred bullets at a target gives you a better chance of hitting on something big

I personally LOVE the way something gets Torn Apart!! and done to DEATH here on ATS. It allows every aguement, crazy OR logical,...for OR AGAINST, to come through, so all angles are covered.

Thats my opinion anyway..

Rambled on a bit there sorry 'bout that

Cheers

AoN

[edit on 6-8-2008 by Anomic of Nihilism]

reply to post by Anomic of Nihilism

---

It's only cool if people learn from it, instead of bringing it up over and over again and using it as proof the governments out to get us or something.
It's only cool if people, who are not experts, listen to the people who are experts, or at least work with pictures like these on a fairly regular basis and have established it's picture artifacts from compression, instead of trees or cities. ( Apparently, we also have trees and cities in the shadow caused by the lander. )
In that instance, all it is is the same nonsense getting drug up over and over again.

This maybe?

reply to post by macr59

---

I did not read all of the replies. But here is what I got. The link from the OP provided a photo that showed those digital artifacts when one processed the photo by brightening and contrasting beyond mondo. And that was interesting but I thought it was due to the photo being in the digital realm and one never knows what's going to happen as opposed with dealing with emulsion film/negative which won't yield anything that is not in the negative. IOW, you can't add anything to the emulsion. But you can with digital.

Here is what else I found. I got a copy of the same photo from the lpi and this time the foregournd was not bright white but more a mustard or brown color. I processed it again ramping up the brightness and contrast and this time the pattern in the background and in the shadow of the lander was another pattern as opposed to the bright white photo.

So, in my opinion as not an authority on digital photography, but that is what we're seeing when using a digital photo. It could possibly be done with any photo that has a black background.

No mystery, but interesting nonetheless.

what about the blue streak in this photo

www.hq.nasa.gov...

[edit on 8/7/08 by rezial666]

reply to post by rezial666

---

Looks like a scan problem..

reply to post by rezial666

---

Looks like the light catching on the camera lens, you have that happen on occasion.Might also be something streaking by, there's debris in space.

Having the all of the post (which I rarely do)

I'm glad that other people have come to the logical answser that I myself held as soon as I got to the first page of the thread.

This is all an effect of graphical manipulation. Conversing file types, reserving colours, adding brightness and then re-saving. I suggest that unless you are looking at an image that has been taken only 1 step away from an original RAW file then you are looking at nothing just noise.

There is not point is trying to over analyse something that has lost all of its original photographic evidence.

As soon as you have an image that is made of more than 16 colours and you convert the file type, as you zoom in to see each pixel, new shading takes effect. All you are seeing is compression.

Heres what I got using Photoshop and the curvemeister 3 filter.All I did what adjust the brightness.

Here is one photo from Apollo 12. Lunar surface (AS12-49-7294). Maybe reflection, but reflection only above horizon. Maybe Klingon mothership?

Source:

www.apolloarchive.com...