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.

 

NASA Exposed! Fake Moon Images?

page: 12
74
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


mike....according to the nice aerial view supplied by Phage, the view of the rock in the top photo, from 'station 6', would be the one dubbed 'Henry'.

Since you don't provide a time hack to differentiate when each photo was taken, your premise falls apart.

Please try to come back with a mission timeline, for each EVA...and every stop of the LRV, and the Astronaut's various movements, when and where they took photos. (OH....we already KNOW where the LRV stopped, thanks to Phage...)

Actually, in the case of Apollo 17, seems that the two Astronauts, at Station 6 and 7, one was searching for rock samples, after walking/hopping away from the LRV, whilst one was taking pictures. Of course, roles could have changed later on the EVA....in fact, I think each Astronaut took his job very seriously.

Who is to say that the LRV was moved from Station 6 to 7 with both Astronauts onboard??? They had continuous radio communication....no one was going to be left behind....

Sorry to burst your bubble...just examine the full facts of the mission profile, as recorded......

In any case....just as on Earth, when your forground is slightly different, but the hills in the distance are still on the same horizon....the rule of parallax will be the same.....even as you move to adjust your foreground view....

[edit on 4/27/0909 by weedwhacker]




posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 05:27 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I'm glad you agree that the image is actually a composite of images taken from several different locations and is not a 'traditional' panorama (ie. a 360 degree image taken from a single location).

You used '...' thirteen times to do this.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Most NASA panoramic photos are stitched together from smaller photographs. This is simply error on the part of the person doing the stitching of the photos - its bad error - but none-the-less simply explained by bad technique and lack of attention to details on the combined photo edges.

If they wanted to hide something on the photo, do you really think all the secret "whatevers" attempting to be hidden would be on the edges of every photo?



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by flight-dynamics
If they wanted to hide something on the photo, do you really think all the secret "whatevers" attempting to be hidden would be on the edges of every photo?

No one's trying to 'hide' anything! But perhaps 'manufacturing' the terrain?


And you said that the secret 'whatevers' were on the edge of every photo? Dagnabbit! I've taken the pains to illustrate a whole lot of areas within the images that have been 'stitched', on the previous page! They are NOT only on the edges, but random, all over the place.

Also someone mentioned that he received a reply from someone in NASA saying that the images were stitched in Photoshop! Jeez! Is that all that NASA has got in terms of professional software? You can do a far better job using ENVI. It costs just $6000. But I guess NASA can't afford such goodies due to funding problems!


Cheers!



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh
And you said that the secret 'whatevers' were on the edge of every photo? Dagnabbit! I've taken the pains to illustrate a whole lot of areas within the images that have been 'stitched', on the previous page! They are NOT only on the edges, but random, all over the place.

So does mine, and not just at the edges of each frame:
a130.ac-images.myspacecdn.com...
Some of your problems seem to be with a failure to understand the lateral motion made between panoramas though, insisting that certain rocks should be there that really shouldn't be there.


Also someone mentioned that he received a reply from someone in NASA saying that the images were stitched in Photoshop! Jeez! Is that all that NASA has got in terms of professional software? You can do a far better job using ENVI. It costs just $6000. But I guess NASA can't afford such goodies due to funding problems!


Regardless of the software used, you will have problems with any panorama you take by hand, particularly if you're trying to do it from rough terrain or over a large span. In any case, I've said this a million times, NASA didn't stitch these panoramas, regular citizens did on their own and submitted it to ALSJ:
history.nasa.gov...



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
In any case, I've said this a million times, NASA didn't stitch these panoramas, regular citizens did on their own and submitted it to ALSJ:
history.nasa.gov...

Hmmm....So there's no such thing as QC (Quality Control) in NASA or there's no check before including these panoramas stitched by 'regular citizens' in NASA's LSJ archives? If someone had gulped a budweiser too many and put an alien on a lunar rock...Nuff said!


Oh yeah! No one at NASA has the time to go into all the details, what? Now how can I be sure that what I'm looking at are the actuals or just something produced by some tipsy 'regular citizen'?

Cheers!



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

WW!! I’m both surprised and disappointed at your reply! You’ve referred to Phage’s aerial shots of Apollo’s landing sites and Stations a gazillion times. You’ve been an experienced pilot and have probably thousands of flying hours. So I’m surprised you can compare an aerial shot (vertical or oblique) with photographs taken at ground level.

They’re a different ball game altogether. Even if you contend that they go to show the directional vectors from the Stations to the identified landmarks, it makes little sense.

Firstly, what you see in a vertical photograph and one taken from ground level are from totally different perspectives. Secondly, the images that were stitched to make the panoramas were taken from different areas on foot as well as from the Moon Rover. Can you identify the locations from where the photographs were taken from the aerial image provided by Phage? Or have all locations from where all these pics were taken, marked on the aerial photograph that you keep harping on?

Or perhaps you didn’t have the time to observe terrain and what it looks like from 30,000 feet up due to considerable distraction of the air hostesses on board?
Oh, the pleasures of an aircraft captain! Now why the heck didn't I become one? ....I guess it's a trifle late now! Oh woe!


Cheers!





[edit on 27-4-2009 by mikesingh]



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   
The traverse map shows that Station 7 was not "a few meters back" from Station 6 but 500 meters to the East. The boulder seen at Station 6 is out of the field of view to the right.

The photos for each panorama were not taken from different areas or from the rover.
The images used to make the panoramas were taken intentionally, from the same spot, in order to create these composites.

Without a view finder, the crew had to learn how to point, shoot, turn slightly, point and shoot again, etc., until a panorama of overlapping photographs was generated. This required a lot of training on Earth, before they traveled to the Moon.

www.lpi.usra.edu...

The location of each panorama is given in its caption.

NASA File Number: JSC2007e045387
Mission: 17
Description: Station 6



[edit on 4/27/2009 by Phage]



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh
Hmmm....So there's no such thing as QC (Quality Control) in NASA or there's no check before including these panoramas stitched by 'regular citizens' in NASA's LSJ archives?

There's nothing inherently wrong with the panoramas, they're not bad as panoramas go. They ARE labeled as such though, and the credit is given to their 3rd party source. The onus is on YOU to do your research and use the original images, not 3rd party panoramas provided for convenience and the big picture look.

Oh yeah! No one at NASA has the time to go into all the details, what? Now how can I be sure that what I'm looking at are the actuals or just something produced by some tipsy 'regular citizen'?

Credit is given to the "regular citizens" when a 3rd party source is used, in a striking blue font no less. If you had done your due diligence in your research you would know who to actually give credit to, and it ain't NASA the way you've been claiming.

[edit on 27-4-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


It's pretty sad that NASA believes that the general public will buy into these images as the best they can provide. I mean technology is so much better than these pictures, so it makes me wonder what actual images their taking, and why they can't produce them to the public.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   
To all of you who keep saying the Rock is not there on the second photo!
Go to page 7 on this topic and look at the exteranl images I have posted.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
In any case, I've said this a million times, NASA didn't stitch these panoramas, regular citizens did on their own and submitted it to ALSJ:
history.nasa.gov...
The panoramas from the OP were made at Johnson Space Center by Warren Harold, these are not the same panoramas that we can see on the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal.

 

Those that know me know that I am usually on NASA's side, but this work, to me, is unacceptable, I would be ashamed of presenting this type of work to a client.

One thing I noticed now is that the original photos are colour photos but the panorama looks like it suffered a "concentration reduction", making everything look more neutral than on the original individual photos.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Thanks Mikesingh.

So where is the rock? it must be out of the picture to the right.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Beowolfs
 
Hi Beo,
At least I had a look,
and I understand your frustration,everyone's talking
when they should be looking!



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
Thanks Mikesingh.
So where is the rock? it must be out of the picture to the right.

According to Phage it's way off to the right behind the nearest high ground! But surprisingly the perspective remains the same!


But hey! What the heck do I know about perspective in a low gravity, low atmospheric environ like the Moon?
Nix! I had booked a seat on Zorgon's tin-can for a trip to the Moon just to get a feel! But looking at the pace of work going on, I'd be dead and long gone before the countdown even begins! Jeeez!


Zorgon, you there? C'mon man, shake a leg and get movin'!


Cheers!



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


Thanks Smurfy!



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh

Originally posted by masterp
Thanks Mikesingh.
So where is the rock? it must be out of the picture to the right.

According to Phage it's way off to the right behind the nearest high ground! But surprisingly the perspective remains the same!


It does? By my eye, it sure doesn't remain the same. Clearly the locations of the more distant peaks shift and the whole mountain range gets closer.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   
I have posted on this thread a few times. There was some issues with stars showing up in pictures. Which is why I feel obligated to type the following.

I have a Kodak Easy Share DX4530 5.0 mega pixel w/zoom, from what I understand is you ordinary average digital camera. For the past three nights, the stars have been shining as bright as can be outside.

I decided to take some pics with this camera (and I took several!) I even tried to cover the flash. I could'nt capture one single star on that camera.........not one.

Thanks to the OP for starting this thread, thanks to all for the "schoolin'", and thanks the staff at Ats for this sites existence. For without these things I would still think otherwise about the ability to capture stars on camera.

Have a good one!

~ Zeus



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Zeus2573
 


Zeus, another 'star' (the ATS kind
) from me!!!

It is gratifying to see someone put the pedal to the metal and actually check something out for themselves!!

I had to chuckle a bit, about covering the flash....but, good idea (even though there's likely an option in a menu on your camera to turn it off).
Darned if I can find it, many times, on MY cameras....so, I understand the simplicity of just covering it. Of course, the range of the flash is about 30 feet, max anyway. Just sayin'...


Again, thanks for trying out your experiment, and reporting back!



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


hi mike,
have you also studied this picture of the apollo image atlas no.AS17-147-22560
seems that this mountain is a little transparent , looks like if you can see through the mountain and see the mountain behind it.(at the left side in the picture).
btw i always like to read your topics.

cynus



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join