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.

 

[Exposed] Apollo image Indicative of Lunar Structures?

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 



You are wrong - which is why you have not been able to substantiate your hypothesis with any corroborative external source data



Funny you say that when you follow with:


The apparent secondary fiducials at the upper-left have been determined to be the result of an improperly placed overlay ontop of an image which was then photographed, giving us this version of AS14-66-9306.


...without any "corroborative external source data" to back up YOUR hypothesis. Note I emphasized your use of the word 'apparent'.



This image clearly shows fiducial manipulation...


THAT is merely your opinion, based on what others have said.

The image does NOT "clearly show" manipulation. That bold claim is unsubstantiated with proof, it is uttered as mere guess.




posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 10:20 AM
link   


I know the "streaks" are pretty strait...but I'm just throwing this out there...







Of course this would also suggest an atmosphere on the moon as well....right?


I don't really think that is what it is....just showing some similarities...


If you think it is some kind of craft....lets go deeper....

1) Could be some sort of exhaust trailing from craft, but in order for it to "stay" there, wouldn't there have to be some kind of atmosphere? ? ? ?

2) Could be the light from the craft moving by very fast, and you get these types of streaks...





3) I'm not sure if all camera explanations have been ruled out yet, have they..??



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Overload

I'm not sure if all camera explanations have been ruled out yet, have they..??




We can't rule anything out yet.

These strange beams of light have also appeared in other Apollo images. I think Hoagland used one in one of his presentations.

If these beams are visible because of an atmosphere, then either this was shot in a studio, or the moon has a denser atmosphere than NASA cares to admit.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Mintwithahole.
 



Hang on, the camera's they used where chest mounted and couldn't have there settings changed due to the fact the astronaut couldn't even see the greater part of the camera!


The cameras were modified, to be operated with the thick gloves.

They were mostly automatic, but there were focal rings and f-stop rings with larger-than-normal paddles to be operated with gloves.

The information is on the web, if you search hard enough.


I've checked up on what you said and you're right, the shutter time, etc, could be changed but not while the astronauts had the camera strapped to their chest. What you are therefore implying is that the astronaut knew he was going to take that picture, from that position, with the sun coming in from that angle, before he left the LEM because he would have had to have still been inside to make the changes to the cameras settings. However, if he did that he wouldn't have been unable to take other pictures as they would have been spoilt by the fact the settings were set for a one-off particular photograph. The picture shown above. . .
The astronauts couldn't see the minute controls of the cameras and even if by some miracle they could they wouldn't have been able to move them because the gloves they wore were pressurised making it difficult to move the fingers. They could grasp spades etc, but not move a small paddle or dial millimetres to get the optimum setting.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Just in any any of you have never seen it...

This is what a Man's face looks like when he is on the moon. These are from Apollo 17:

HH (Jack) Schmitt

Eugene Cernan






posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Mintwithahole.
 


Here, from this source:

www.clavius.org...

Automatic exposure controls were available on several consumer camera models during the late 1960s. Apollo 11 Command Module Pilot Michael Collins suggested that Hasselblad look into the possibility of incorporating this technology into the camera after his experience on Apollo 11. Apparently the professional photographers who used the Hasselblad model upon which the lunar surface cameras were based did not want automatic exposure controls on their cameras and so it was not a standard feature.

Shutter speeds were typically 1/125 or 1/250 second. F-stop settings varied from f/5.6 for up-sun photos to f/8 and f/11 for cross-sun and down-sun photos.

The lack of viewfinder was occasionally a problem. Early missions used a wide-angle lens. It was sufficient to point the camera in the general direction of the subject and you would be likely to frame it well enough. On later missions a 500mm telephoto lens was also taken, and the cameras were modified with sighting rings to help aim them. Normally the camera would be mounted on the space suit chest bracket, but for telephoto use the astronaut would have to remove it and hold it at eye level in order to sight down the rings.


FOCUSING IN THE ZONE

Manual focus is not as problematic as many suppose. Lens manufacturers mark the expected distance to the subject on the focus ring, and it's simply a matter of measuring or estimating the distance from the lens to the subject and setting the ring for that value. To aid the astronauts in measuring the distance to subject, length of commonly used tools was marked on the lens. Several Apollo photographs show the tongs and scoops used as distance references. Focus need not be exact either.

The Apollo astronauts were trained in "zone focusing", a technique used by photojournalists and sports photographers who often don't have the time to focus visually or by measurement. At a high f-stop, a camera's depth of field increases. This means that when the lens is set to focus at a certain distance, objects somewhat nearer and farther from this ideal distance are also sharply focused. The narrower the aperture (i.e., the higher the f-stop), the greater the depth of field. And the sloppier the photographer can be be about his focus setting. The Zeiss Biogon lens used by the astronauts had an indicator that specified the near and far boundaries of the depth of field for each combination of focus and f-stop.

Zone focusing is a technique whereby the f-stop is kept high, resulting in lenient depths of field. The focus range is then divided into "zones" corresponding approximately to near, medium, and far. These zones of clear focus overlap slightly and correspond to preset positions of the focus ring. The Zeiss Biogon lens provided to the astronauts had "detents" or click-stops that corresponded to these three zones. The astronaut had simply to push the tab on the focus ring to one of three easy-to-find stops to select the focus zone depending on the rough distance to the subject.
*skip*

...
The original argument was that they were all (or in large part) of suspiciously high quality. Anyone who examines the full extent of the record for himself finds that not to be the case. The authors have made an assertion and supported it with selective evidence. Now confronted with the true character of that evidence, the authors change the direction of their argument without closure on the original issue..

The authors have been caught with their homework undone, and raising different suspicions does not excuse that. Either they have not extensively examined the record, as they claimed, or they have deliberately mischaracterized the record to their readers. Either way, we cannot trust these authors.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 10:59 AM
link   
I just found a very strange Apollo 17 image - there is a red sky!!



Lunar Sky turns Red.... Very Strange Effect!


*What do you guys think could account for this?


It couldn't be the gloves, which have no red on them. See them below:

history.nasa.gov...




[edit on 15-7-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Would be nice to know the source of the image...."404 Error" doesn't tell us much.

Where're ArMaP and Phage when you need 'em???



edit: Oh, thanks for fixing the link...

[edit on 15 July 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Light leakage perhaps? Just maybe? It appears in that same film magazine as well as others.

www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


LOL!

Reminds me of the old 8mm home movies my Dad took back in the 1960s!!

I think the unexposed film was often subject to leakage...resulting in the same redish/orangish blobs on certain frames....



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Here is another example - this one is from Apollo 15:

Apollo 15 - Red sky on the Moon! [the secret revealed] Click if you Dare...

*The image in may last post of the lunar red sky effect was from Apollo 17.



Edit: I've been getting alot of images from NASA lately that are actually just images of images. In fact, I have gotten so many 'pictures of pictures' that they will all be getting a thread of their own quite soon. *Even the image linked to in this post has actually been cropped from a larger 'picture of a picture'.


Exubie has been angered.... NASA will rue the day.


[edit on 15-7-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 02:19 PM
link   
I looked at the moon last night. I didn't see anything reflective. Wouldn't the 'giant glass structures' be very noticeable to those looking through telescopes if they were reflecting that much light?

I have no idea what this is. Although I doubt it's refracted light off of reflective glass right now. It's conjecture at this point.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Exubie has been angered.... NASA will rue the day.


Really? How so?

OMG! The Lunar surface is RED! People with pace-makers DO NOT CLICK!



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaMod

Originally posted by ablue07
Great pictures! Is there any possibility that that could be something airborne? Something like some sort of craft?


Yes, but it's never been proven.

2nd line.

Isn't it known that our own craft were orbiting the moon? (command module and Lunar module)? I don't know the cause of that image but I can give you a possibility. First read this article:
The Lunar Atmosphere


The lunar missions increased the mass of the lunar atmosphere by 30%


Think about how much propellant has to be emitted to increase the lunar atmosphere by 30%!!!! OK not that much, because there wasn't much atmosphere to begin with, but still it's a significant amount for the moon.

Now imagine some of the maneuvers that were made between the command module and the LM (aka LEM), undocking, redocking, course corrections, etc. The propellant emitted from the rocket motors could possibly catch and reflect sunlight the way our own atmosphere turns the sky blue. That would be my first guess, but, it's just a guess, though a pretty good one I think.

And by the way, the craft emitting those gases doesn't have to be in the image, it could be on the other side of the moon by now, the gases could just linger due to the low gravity, no wind to speak of, etc. Think of a contrail that can linger hours after a jet has passed.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


maybe it might be a door opening with tons of light coming out from the inside, or a govt space craft flying by...im saying govt space craft due to the similarities jet thrusters make when they are flying or taking off.....from the pics ive seen, ufo dont utilize thrusters (too advance)....i could be wrong...

you think if the Chinese make it to the moon, they will share their findings to the world?



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Where're ArMaP and Phage when you need 'em???


I am here.


 
 


reply to post by Exuberant1
 

Not really a red sky, but a red upper part of the film, as you can see in this image from The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth..


I suggest you use that site to check the photos you find in other sites, they have the bigger (not-cropped) versions of the photos, and usually with higher resolution. Unfortunately, they do not have many photos.

Those blue "chips", as you call it, also appear over the ground, showing that they are just something on the camera and not in the sky.




As for the fiducial marks, it would be interesting to see if all the images that show those double marks are from the same camera, if they are then maybe that camera had the glass with the fiducial marks mounted with the marks on the outside side of the glass instead of the inside, and the gap between the outer side of the glass and the film (the thickness of the glass) made the shadows of the marks visible.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 

I think the doubled fiducials are produced by an internal reflection within the camera. The Reseau Plate on which the crosses are marked is at the back of the camera, right in front of the film. The very bright sunlight casts one (cross) shadow on the film, is reflected off of the plate, then back off of the lens creating the second shadow. A form of lens flare.

Another example from Apollo 14:



It can be seen in this image from Apollo 17 but it's hard to see because of the brightness. Adjusting the levels helps.



Apollo 12:


[edit on 7/15/2009 by Phage]



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


That last image has two triple fiducial marks, making it even stranger.

I don't really know what could have done that multiplying of the marks, I have to ask my sister (she is a photographer) what she thinks about it.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP






Armap,

Do you know what is wrong with this picture you just posted?

It is a image of an image being projected onto a screen; some of the projected image can even be seen on the wall behind this screen.....

*Here is the 'same' image as seen at the Apollo Surface Journal - Note that the pull-down screen and wall behind it are not visible in this image:



www.hq.nasa.gov...


NASA



[edit on 16-7-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Thebudweiserstuntman
 


Now bud.. there is one thing to remember. Glass is NOT a solid. Though space is cold and all that, yes yes, we know it would remain frozen etc.. but again that is also forgetting the heat of the sun, and or the UV rays for thousands of years beating off this thing. in short, glass being a liquid (believe it or not) it will over time melt. no matter what anti glare, or coatings are there, glass will eventually fall. it will not splash, but when you look at uber old cathedrals, and ancient buildings (200+ yrs) that still have some glass from back in the day. it looks all rippled. its because its literally spilling from YEARS of UV abuse, hot/cold weather etc. so over time.. the glass WILL be smooth again. There is virtually nothing that can withstand eons of UV radiation forever. It will all eventually melt. if it is "moonglass" or the crystaline structure Hoagland referred to in the Moon Mars series That would be the perfect explanation, dark side of the moon or not. Radiation is radiation and is known to travel THROUGH entire planets. if the moon is hollow.. the radiation does not have much to worry about in terms of resistance.
cheers.
Stan.




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join