apollo 11: 100% perfect picture without seeker

page: 1
32
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+6 more 
posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   
I found this article from www.geschichteinchronologie.ch
Excellent "moon fotos" without moon photographer - foto compositions "on the moon"




Conclusion Disappeared reticules are not always a sure evidence for a foto fake. But the fotos are so perfectly arranged and illuminated that they cannot be made by "moon astronauts" when the astronauts cannot even look through the seeker and the camera shall have been fixed on the chest. Many fotos are simple foto compositions e.g. with missing shadows and are no contribution for a "moon landing".


It concerns the use of Hasselblad camera by apollo 11 team.

After some research, this article have never been discussed on ATS.
But only few post about Hasselblad camera.

Sure, there is a lot of thread on ATS about moon, apollo 11, ....
Some of his arguments or facts have never been debunked on ATS.

Any comment ?


Edit: current estimation is now 95%.
to be continued





[edit on 22-12-2009 by mixmix]




posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Well interesting read, its a good pile of evidence, or rather many intelligent obersavtions. A good start but not enough to evidently disprove the landing, or the photos being a hoax. I think some of them have been debunked before, but I'm not sure and can't find the relevant threads/articles right now.


Anyway, good find!



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Clairaudience
 




Well interesting read, its a good pile of evidence, or rather many intelligent obersavtions. A good start but not enough to evidently disprove the landing, or the photos being a hoax.


Yes, even if the footage is fake, it doesn't prove apollo 11 had never land.

old ATS thread about moon gate.
NASA Gate - We Did Go To The Moon ...But The Footage Is Fake

[edit on 22-12-2009 by mixmix]

[edit on 22-12-2009 by mixmix]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Why is it impossible to center the American Flag without a seeker. Just point your chest towards it. I don't think it would be that hard. This guy is a fool.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Longtimegone
 





Why is it impossible to center the American Flag without a seeker. Just point your chest towards it. I don't think it would be that hard.


I'm not sure that it's so easy to make 100% perfect pictures by pointing your chest toward something.

Try it. fix a digital camera on your chest with tape and post your result.
Take the pictures by 2 of the same object.

[edit on 22-12-2009 by mixmix]

[edit on 22-12-2009 by mixmix]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Longtimegone
Why is it impossible to center the American Flag without a seeker. Just point your chest towards it. I don't think it would be that hard. This guy is a fool.


How would you know it's lined up at center if you can't look at it ?


Why must people speak before they have thought ?



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by mixmix

I'm not sure that it's so easy to make 100% perfect pictures by pointing your chest toward something.


what makes you think that the pictures were all 100% perfect? have you looked at ALL of them?

instead of believing silly conspiracy theory sites, have a look at www.badastronomy.com..., written by a real scientist.
Bad: The program makes a big deal out of how well the pictures taken from the Moon were exposed and set. Every picture we see is just right, with the scene always centered perfectly. However, the cameras were mounted on the front of the astronauts' spacesuit, and there was no finder. They couldn't have taken perfect pictures every time!

Good ... and of course, no one claims they did. Thousands of pictures were taken on the Moon, and the ones you see will tend to be the good ones. If Buzz Aldrin accidentally cut off Neil Armstrong's head, you probably won't see that image in a magazine. Also, everything done on the Moon was practiced endlessly by the astronauts. The people working on the mission knew that these pictures would be some of the most important images ever taken, so they would have taken particular care in making sure the astronauts could do it cold. When fabled astronaut Story Musgrave replaced a camera on board the Hubble Space Telescope in 1993, someone commented that he made it look easy. "Sure," he replied, "I had practiced it thousands of times!"



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85

Originally posted by Longtimegone
Why is it impossible to center the American Flag without a seeker. Just point your chest towards it. I don't think it would be that hard. This guy is a fool.


How would you know it's lined up at center if you can't look at it ?


Why must people speak before they have thought ?


One of the top mounted view ports. Fairly common configuration.
But yeah. Not seeing anything in this that is any form of coffin nail.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   
How do we know that the photos that were not centered or out of focus were not deleted or destroyed? I do that all the time before I post my pics anywhere. Is there a record of each picture or frame that was taken whether is resulted in a good pic or not?



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   
There is a web site that has all of the Apollo photos. It shows them in full frame, before they were cropped in a more pleasing aspect (i.e. centered). Even the bad photos (out of focus, over or underexposed, etc.) are available.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadowhawk
 


Thanks for the info.
My13 year old daughter has tons of pictures of herself she took with her digital camera and she is pretty good about centering herself in the frames even though she can't see through the screen.

I'm not saying that it was the same for the astronauts but I won't rule out their excellent sense of eye-chest coordination, if there is such a thing.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


And why should we believe badstronomy.com, they are known debunker's, haven't seen them agree with anything unless it comes from their so called mainstream scientists.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 





what makes you think that the pictures were all 100% perfect? have you looked at ALL of them? instead of believing silly conspiracy theory sites, have a look at www.badastronomy.com..., written by a real scientist. Bad: The program makes a big deal out of how well the pictures taken from the Moon were exposed and set. Every picture we see is just right, with the scene always centered perfectly. However, the cameras were mounted on the front of the astronauts' spacesuit, and there was no finder. They couldn't have taken perfect pictures every time! Good ... and of course, no one claims they did. Thousands of pictures were taken on the Moon, and the ones you see will tend to be the good ones. If Buzz Aldrin accidentally cut off Neil Armstrong's head, you probably won't see that image in a magazine. Also, everything done on the Moon was practiced endlessly by the astronauts. The people working on the mission knew that these pictures would be some of the most important images ever taken, so they would have taken particular care in making sure the astronauts could do it cold. When fabled astronaut Story Musgrave replaced a camera on board the Hubble Space Telescope in 1993, someone commented that he made it look easy. "Sure," he replied, "I had practiced it thousands of times!"


100% perfect: I take it from the article.


The "moon fotos" are almost all absolutely sharp an illuminated tricky (Wisnewski, p.153). On the first film of Apollo 11 all fotos are said to be perfect, with 0 % error rate (Wisnewski, p.158).

0% defect => 100% perfect.
I do some basic search on ATS.
The Hasselblad camera 500 EL was modified for apollo 11.
The first and 3 or 4 last frame of each magazine have problem due to light exposure during magazine replacement.
So I should say 98%. Sorry

From ATS thread
'Official NASA Photos'

from NASA Photo Index
NASA apollo 11 sub menu
A total of 1340 frames of 70mm for the apollo 11 mission.
I note 10 magazines.
1 magazine for the EVA.
I count about 120 pictures of the apollo 11 landing sites with this camera.
Not thousands.
About 3 pictures are not centered or missed in the thumbnails.
There is no other pictures from this magazine. To check.

Magazine 40/S (Color) Frames 5844-5970 thumbnails images from NASA

It's not an automatic camera. see article again.

I'm agree with you that the astronauts have been trained for this.
And they should not be novice in photo

It's not an automatic camera. see article again.


some other basic facts for apollo 11.
Total time on the moon: 21H39
Total EVA time: 2H31



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadowhawk
 





There is a web site that has all of the Apollo photos. It shows them in full frame, before they were cropped in a more pleasing aspect (i.e. centered). Even the bad photos (out of focus, over or underexposed, etc.) are available.


Do you have a link to this website ?



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
There were 9 film magazines from Apollo 11 and there were a total of 1407 images taken -- 339 of which were taken on the surface of the Moon.

Of those 339, I counted about 40 which definitely were not "centered in the frame", but that is highly subjective, because I don't know what the astronaut was attempting to have in the center of the frame for most of the pictures.

HOWEVER, many of the photos were simply "general pictures of the Moon", so obviously everything would be centered. Many of the ones of the flag, the LEM, or the other astronaut are not centered, but many of those were NOT in my count of 40. If I counted all of those, my number of non-centered pictures would easily double. I only counted obvious bad pictures. Very few of them are "perfect compositions".

My conservative count of about 40 of 339 means 88% were in frame, but, like I said, the number of bad pictures is probably higher.

I have no idea what method the people from your article on www.geschichteinchronologie.ch used to count the bad ones. You should not believe everything you read. Many of those "moon hoax sites" are notorious for printing misinformation. Instead of relying on someone else's opinion, check out the pictures for yourself like I did.

Here is a website with the Apollo 11 photos:
www.lpi.usra.edu...


[edit on 12/22/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   
yep, this guy needs some education.

for one thing, it's a known fact that hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of pictures were taken and a boat load of them were not usable, out of focus, blurry, poorly composed etc etc.

But if you take 1000 pictures, you're bound to get 1 or two nice ones.

several of the setups we see now are composite work done after the fact. For instance the panoramas we find are composed, using new software.

we did not have those panorama before, but thanks to new technology, now we do!

willful ignorance seems so derigeur with the hoax folks. they're funny.
Soon, they will deny their own existence and claim their parents as a hoax and that they themselves are a figment of their own imagination.

such a waste of good time!



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 




339 of which were taken on the surface of the Moon.


I was counting the number of picture during EVA,
not from inside the LEM.

in magazine S from your link
Lunar and planetary institute
about 116 pictures in EVA with
5901: misoriented
5951: not centered, head cut
5904: blur, misoriented

so, about 110 pictures you can publish and 4 for garbage.
Perfectly centered is a thing, but beautifull, artistic picture, yes.
make about 95%.

yes some are not "perfect composition", perhap's their goal is science analysis.
But some are more for newspaper, as you say "general pictures of the Moon"
3 of the American Flags
58 with LEM inside
5 of the first foot
about 30 of landscape
Here is my count.

I don't count the last 8 frames who are blur or the alien face, this have already been discuss.

And many picture have been taken by 2.

I don't know this site but some basic fact from the article are interesting and have never been discussed before on ATS.

For sparky63, her face is not so far from the camera.
Ask her to put the camera on her chest and take 2 pictures of an object about 60 feets away like in picture AS-11-5961.



[edit on 22-12-2009 by mixmix]

[edit on 22-12-2009 by mixmix]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by djusdjus
 





for one thing, it's a known fact that hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of pictures were taken and a boat load of them were not usable, out of focus, blurry, poorly composed etc etc. But if you take 1000 pictures, you're bound to get 1 or two nice ones.

Known fact, give a link, so.

No this article and some points regarding the Hasselblad have never been discussed on ATS.

1000 pictures ???
For the moment, I count about 110 pictures take in the EVA time by astronauts, read the article and stay focus on facts.



yep, this guy needs some education.

who, me, the autor of the article or you ?



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   
I have seen many moon photos that were crap due to poor centering of the objects being photoed. Cropping makes this a non-issue in my book. But why the bulk of the photos are ignored by this fool should be obvious to anyone with over half a brain.

This guy, despite his fancy internet page, is a fool, and so are those that follow him. Ignorance begets ignorance.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by mixmix
 

Well -- maybe you didn't count the ones near the end of the film magazine, but if they were poorly centered pictures, I counted them. It shouldn't matter whether it was a poorly centered picture taken towards the end of a film magazine in the middle of the magazine.

I saw several pictures in magazine "S" that I suspect are not exactly what the astronaut was attempting:

- There is the one of just the astronaut's toe (AS11-40-5879)
- Three consecutive shots of a LEM landing strut, none of which seems to be in frame -- although I can't tell what was supposed to be "in frame" based on the fact that different objects are centered in each frame (AS11-40-5859, AS11-40-5860, and AS11-40-5861)
- A tilted picture of under the LEM (AS11-40-5871)
- A picture that was to be part of a panorama, but the horizon was cut off (AS11-40-5887)
- Another that was to be part of a panorama with the horizon cut off (AS11-40-5912)
- An extreme close-up of possible a space suit (AS11-40-5904)
- A close-up of part of the LEM (AS11-40-5965)
- A tilted picture of the Moon's surface (AS11-40-5968)

There are also many pictures of "close-up" objects that were photographed twice -- probably because it was harder to get a close-up object in frame, so the astronaut took two pictures to be sure they got it:

- Two pictures of the "message plaque" (AS11-40-5897 and AS11-40-5898), neither of which are centered
- Two pictures of a LEM foot pad, each one centered slightly differently (AS11-40-5895 and AS11-40-5896)
- Two pictures of another LEM foot pad, again each pad centered slightly differently (AS11-40-5917 and AS11-40-5918).
- Two more pictures of a foot pad, one out of frame (AS11-40-5925) and one in frame, although not centered (AS11-40-5926).
- Three consecutive pictures of the LEM, one centered (AS11-40-5927) and the other two not centered (AS11-40-5928 and AS11-40-5929)

I see you counted this picture:
www.lpi.usra.edu...
among the ones that you said are "perfect composition. What exactly is supposed to be centered in this picture if not the LEM or the astronaut?
Out of the four pictures taken of this scene, only one of them is centered. here are the other three (the last listed is the centered one):
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Here is another that is a nice picture, but would have been nicer if it was centered properly:
www.lpi.usra.edu...


[edit on 12/22/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]





new topics
 
32
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join