It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
You are wrong - which is why you have not been able to substantiate your hypothesis with any corroborative external source data
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.
This image clearly shows fiducial manipulation...
Originally posted by Overload
I'm not sure if all camera explanations have been ruled out yet, have they..??
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Exuberant1
Exubie has been angered.... NASA will rue the day.
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.
The lunar missions increased the mass of the lunar atmosphere by 30%
Originally posted by weedwhacker
Where're ArMaP and Phage when you need 'em???
Originally posted by ArMaP