Neil Armstrong - pic of him showing his face on the moon, page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 14 times

Topic started on 30-10-2009 @ 08:50 PM by berenike

I found this photo of Neil Armstrong on Listverse.

This is not my area of expertise (well, nothing else is either) and I hope it's of interest.

This is what they had to say about the picture:

Taken: 1969
Discovered: 2009

This image was just recently published and is from a film camera that was mounted on the Apollo 11 lunar lander. I know technically this might not be considered a photograph but it’s very rare to see an astronaut’s face on the moon except in sci-fi movies so I wanted to include it in the list. The image was discovered while viewing NASA films. As Armstrong raised his gold reflexive visor (which normally obscures the astronaut’s face), his face appears just for a split second on the film. The footage was transferred into high definition format and then a single frame was made into the image above.

Interesting Fact: Because Armstrong was the guy with the camera most of the iconic pictures are of Aldrin and very few of Armstrong. This year on the 40th anniversary of the first moon landing Armstrong was presented this picture. Despite his modesty Armstrong was impressed to receive the print of himself as a souvenir.

Here is a link to the relevant list:

listverse.com...

[edit on 30-10-2009 by berenike]

reply posted on 30-10-2009 @ 08:53 PM by SkitzoFrenic

nevermind

[edit on 30-10-2009 by SkitzoFrenic]

reply posted on 30-10-2009 @ 08:55 PM by berenike

reply to post by SkitzoFrenic

Ohhh - well, I've erased my original response

Have a good evening

[edit on 30-10-2009 by berenike]

reply posted on 1-11-2009 @ 08:28 AM by Kurokage

Thats a great pic, if I was Mr. Armstrong I'd have it turned into wallpaper and paste it on my living room wall. How could you ever feel down with that reminder to welcome you home.

reply posted on 1-11-2009 @ 10:16 AM by Zarniwoop

Thanks for posting. I had not seen that one before.

Cool pic, but not discovered in 2009 as the listverse site states.

Here is the same pic, as well as one taken immediately afterwards from NASA's Apollo Lunar Surface Journal.

www.hq.nasa.gov...

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Looks like in the second pic that the sun was a little bright for Neil.

reply posted on 1-11-2009 @ 02:16 PM by Mojorizzin

Never seen that pic before but really nice find. You can see the rim of his face protection at the top of his helmet(?). At first I thought it was the sun hitting him at a different angle that was causing some sort of effect but the more I look at it....he definitely has the shield pulled up.

WoW!

reply posted on 1-11-2009 @ 02:39 PM by Mojorizzin

Ok, looking at the pic in the the link which is clearer than the two pics in the links above.....now it looks like he still has some sort of protection on his face.

Could it be that there are two different layers of shielding and that the reason he can pull up on layer is because the sun is not shining directly on him. Maybe the light causing the shadow is coming from lights vs sunlight?

But then I still think about the whole landing being faked in a studio.

Still a great pic, tho. Raises questions and questions are good.

reply posted on 1-11-2009 @ 03:16 PM by cisnerosmtz

reply to post by berenike

WOW Cool pic, I have never seen it before, nice find

S & F

reply posted on 1-11-2009 @ 04:35 PM by berenike

Originally posted by Mojorizzin

But then I still think about the whole landing being faked in a studio.

Still a great pic, tho. Raises questions and questions are good.

I did wonder if this picture would be useful to either side of the debate.

I'd quite like to hear from supporters of both persuasions - I am always interested to hear what they make of new evidence. I'm just not sure that this picture falls into that category.

reply posted on 1-11-2009 @ 05:27 PM by jra

Originally posted by Zarniwoop
Cool pic, but not discovered in 2009 as the listverse site states.

I think the only thing that was discovered was that Armstrong had his visor up. The 16mm DAC footage (which this still is from) has been around and publicly available for a long time.

reply posted on 1-11-2009 @ 06:17 PM by ProtoplasmicTraveler

All I can say is that shortly having moved to Hollywood California in the early 1980's some notable people in the Motion Picture Industry confided in me that the Moon Landings were staged and filmed in Burbank California Movie Studios as part of a top secret cold war propoganda effort.

Like then I have no way to prove or disprove their statements but simply took them on face value.

I can say that the people who told me where high enough up in the Hollywood Motion Picture heiarchy to likely be in a position to know if this is true or not.

I can also say that as a young and impressionable young man they might have been saying this to impress me with their inside knowledge or to have a silent laugh about how I might react to it as either a fabrication or a truth.

I do not know.

I do know unlike Arnold we haven't been back since which to me is peculiar.

I have a telescope and enjoy looking up at the moon with it especially when it's full. I do believe it has an atmosphere, I do believe there is some form of life up there.

reply posted on 1-11-2009 @ 06:28 PM by jra

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
All I can say is that shortly having moved to Hollywood California in the early 1980's some notable people in the Motion Picture Industry confided in me that the Moon Landings were staged and filmed in Burbank California Movie Studios as part of a top secret cold war propoganda effort.

To quote myself from another thread...

Was this studio several KM in size? Or able to act as a giant vacuum chamber and also some how affect gravity so that everything (and I mean everything, not just the astronauts) acted as if they were in 1/6th of Earths gravity?

The movie "2001: A Space Odyssey", which is a great film and had cutting edge special effects for 1968, comes no where close to accurately simulating zero/low gravity or the vacuum of space. There are just some things you can't fake here on Earth.

reply posted on 1-11-2009 @ 06:31 PM by berenike

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

I found this recent thread extremely interesting. It suggests that Stanley Kubrick filmed the 'moon shots' and left clues about it in The Shining:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I've no idea how plausible it is, but the OP (Skeptical Ed) put a lot of thought into his theory.

[edit on 1-11-2009 by berenike]

reply posted on 1-11-2009 @ 06:41 PM by ProtoplasmicTraveler

reply to post by jra

I can not answer these questions. That though does not mean that these questions can't be answered just that I lack the technical qualifications.

I would say this, and bear in mind I am someone who has clearly stated "I don't know" either way.

If the Government aided a film studio to carry this out and Hollywood does have a relationship with Washington when it comes to propaganda in times of war lest anyone forget or forget the cold war was very much a war in the government's eyes...

That would mean that the government could have supplied technology not normally available for such a filming.

The technology curve from final stage to market can lag from anywhere to 3 years to 15 depending on how militarily important the technology is and if the technology to replace it is in the chute yet.

Everything we have from medicine to the Internet was designed first for Military use. Once it becomes wide spread in other militaries (our enemies) or a more advanced technology can replace it, then it is given to free enterprise to market to the masses.

If a film Studio shot the production for the Government it could have been with the aide of technology or equipment not in use for years or decades later.

Additionally movie sets are massive, many of them are square miles, and they all have massive properties outside Los Angeles in the Desert. The Desert in many places is flat. The Movie Studios employ thousands of unionized carpenters, electricians, plumbers and other craftsmen who can build all manners of structures quickly and cheaply and tear them down just as fast.

Finally Hollywood is a town with a lot of skeletons in it's closet, decadent lifestyles and easy money fuel the kind of perversities and predilections that make most people bribable blackmail-able, blackball-able, and willing to keep secrets within a very small community that's good at keeping secrets inside of a much larger community.

Those are all things that one should consider but as I have said, ultimately I do not know.

I do know we haven't been officially been back to the moon and I was 5 years old at 5:00 AM in the morning ESDT when my parents woke me up and parked me in front of the TV to watch the first moon landing.

It was one giant step for mankind; it was one sleepy and confused moment for a little boy!

That's as close to events as they were actually happening that I got.

Edit to add: I can tell you that I have also been inside the Lunar Lander on display at the Smithsonian Institute and that your automobile has more computing power than it did by a significant margin.

As far as the Lunar Lander? I don't think it could have made a trip to the 7-Eleven but hey who knows!

[edit on 1/11/09 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

reply posted on 1-11-2009 @ 06:49 PM by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Originally posted by berenike
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

I found this recent thread extremely interesting. It suggests that Stanley Kubrick filmed the 'moon shots' and left clues about it in The Shining:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I've no idea how plausible it is, but the OP (Skeptical Ed) put a lot of thought into his theory.

[edit on 1-11-2009 by berenike]

Thanks for the link berenike. You are quite the Historian. I really enjoy your threads a lot. By the way slightly off Topic did you know the release of the information regarding King Richards last battle was timed to coincide with the Anniversary of Henry Tudors Coronation?

They say timing is everything in life!

Great thread, starred and flagged friend.

reply posted on 1-11-2009 @ 07:06 PM by berenike

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Thank you - I didn't know that. King Henry VII

Up the pretender

Thank you for your kind comments. I am new to this starting threads on serious subjects lark.

I've recently started to take more notice of articles in the online newspapers and even if I can't add much to the subject it's nice when other people chip in, and really lovely when I've found something that they might otherwise have missed.

reply posted on 2-11-2009 @ 12:01 AM by Zarniwoop

nevermind~

[edit on 2-11-2009 by Zarniwoop]

reply posted on 2-11-2009 @ 12:42 AM by PsykoOps

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Just out of curiousity. You take their word for it without any evidence against a ton of scientific and independent evidence? Why would you just trust them like that?

reply posted on 2-11-2009 @ 01:08 AM by Saint Exupery

Before heading out onto the lunar surface, Buzz Aldrin set the 16mm movie camera to record one frame every second. The resulting sequence recorded over an hour of time on the surface. One of the fun little details of this film is that if you compare images from the beginning, middle and end, you can see the shadows of the LM & flagpole shorten as the sun rises ~1/2 degree in the lunar sky.

More evidence that the footage is genuine.

reply posted on 2-11-2009 @ 01:11 AM by zerbot565

and i thought the visers on the helmet served a purpous..

second line

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^