apollo 11: 100% perfect picture without seeker

Framing could be done from the chest if it's pre-affixed with attention to detail. However, most of those photos were obvious cut and paste jobs. (I'm a photographer). Now, with so many people that use photoshop and such, there are a lot more trained eyes out there. This was not the case in the 60's and 70's where such trickery could be easily passed off as real.

This means of course: a. they decided a camera on the moon was too difficult and just put together some "photos" of the event before or afterward to show people. b. they didn't go to the moon, or didn't go to the moon as early as was told. c. they are hiding something they found on the moon.

My thought is that they are hiding something they found on the Moon, perhaps relics of ancient civilizations. (what else could you find on the moon that would need to be hidden?)

There are a huge number of fake photos from NASA. Not just back then either. They continue to do it with the Mars photos as well.

Why do so many people think that a few stray, unusual photos, including composites, that have something slightly out of the ordinary in them somehow completely make the literally tens of thousands of other good photos and other video recordings and personal accounts "fake," and cast doubt on the entire Moon landing program?

I almost didn't respond to this thread, because this kind of utter nonsense promoted by complete idiots is truly unworthy of a response.

Here is what I don't get,every picture of say the earth from space is missing the surrounding stars,does know one ever question this? Why does nasa do this, any thoughts? There should be thousands of stars in these pictures. Look forward to some explanations.




[edit on 12/22/2009 by dirtydog]

[edit on 12/22/2009 by dirtydog]

[edit on 12/22/2009 by dirtydog]

Originally posted by dirtydog
Here is what I don't get,every picture of say the earth from space is missing the surrounding stars,does know one ever question this? Why does nasa do this, any thoughts? There should be thousands of stars in these pictures. Look forward to some explanations.

Funny, I just looked outside and did not see any stars, the sun is shining, just like on the moon.... Now just think about that for a minute and it wikk be clear why there are no pictures of stars from the moon. Also think about what they were photographing....

reply to post by dereks


Perhaps your not real smart, my question was the pictures of the earth. Did not say a thing about the moon,and your reply really makes me check,if it was not for the T&C, my self.

one more dumas bit the dust,thank god for the ignore button

[edit on 12/22/2009 by dirtydog]

[edit on 12/22/2009 by dirtydog]

[edit on 12/22/2009 by dirtydog]

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
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.

empty argument, no reference & personal attack

it's not that i have an opinion about this moon matter, but it is that i have some concerns&worries about the reason why you allow yourself to post using those gross disinfos methods.

are you getting paid for this ? (if not then you should i guess)

Originally posted by dirtydog
my question was the pictures of the earth. Did not say a thing about the moon,and your reply really makes me check,if it was not for the T&C, my self.

Just stop and think. I take a pictue of the earth from my UFO at 30,000m. Do you see stars? I then zoom to 2000km, take another picture, do you see stars?
Learn something about photography and cameras, and you will understand why there are no stars.

I own a Hasselblad 500 C/M. It has a ground glass framing element on the top, not the back of the body. The astronauts would simply have to look down to see at least part of the image if not all of it, making composition a fairly simple process.

Additionally, considering they are constantly bathed in the brightest of sunlight, the cameras would easily have been preset with a very small f-stop and a predictable exposure setting...the light source would never change in intensity after all.

It is therefore child's play to always take in-focus, properly exposed, well-framed, and extremely detailed pictures on the moon with this camera. Probably why the chose the Hasselblad in the first place.

For someone to call this an impossibility, it would require a near-total absence of the most basic understanding of film photography.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

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.

quote from ATS: 'Official NASA Photos'

And so on most of the rolls of film, the first frame and the last four or five frames will have streaks, spots, blurs, and other symptoms of light leaking into the magazine when it wasn't attached to a camera.

from original source
www.clavius.org...

So If you know that first and 5 last frames will have problems, you will take them as dummy to finish the film fast and change magazine.
Now, if you want to count these 5 pictures. why not ?

I take a break before finishing reply.

Thank for your post.

Originally posted by dirtydog
Here is what I don't get,every picture of say the earth from space is missing the surrounding stars,does know one ever question this? Why does nasa do this, any thoughts? There should be thousands of stars in these pictures. Look forward to some explanations.

Good question! Here's why...

The amount of light reflecting off of the Earth (or the moon) is so much more intense than starlight that in order to properly expose your image of the earth you have to reduce the shutter speed so much that faint light sources (like distant stars) do not show up at all. If you wanted to take a picture with visible stars the earth would be a pure white disc due to it being massively over-exposed.

Hope that makes sense!

reply to post by ImplausibleDeniability


Thank you very much, now my next question would be when we see pictures on the moon, of say the horizen and part of the land scape, is that the same reason? Oh for the one I'm ignoring we don't see stars during day light because of the atmosphere but there is not any in space and /or the moon has very little.

Ops read your reply again I think you answered my question. ty

[edit on 12/22/2009 by dirtydog]

If you look at the original 5903 at

www.lpi.usra.edu...

Theres something missing...the photographer.

The shadow on the visor is that of the subject....anyone explain that please?

Respects

Who ever wrote that website in the OP clearly has no idea what they're talking about...

Quoting from the site.

Heat protection: Any heat protection for the camera is missing for temperatures on the moon of plus 100 and minus 100 degrees C. The cameras are only painted in silver for that.

The temperature of the Moon has little to do with the temperature of the camera. Just because the Lunar surface can reach over 100C doesn't mean the camera will ever get that hot. Different materials reflect and absorb heat at different rates. Something that's shiny and silver will reflect most of the Suns energy and thus will not absorb much heat.

Education: The astronauts have no photographic education. They have no idea how to handle a manual camera with exposure time, shutter and sharpness. The astronauts would not be able to make perfect fotos with a Hasselblad 500 EL even on Earth

This is an outright lie. The astronauts spent lots of time practising with the camera's on Earth. Plus, operating a camera isn't exactly rocket science, it doesn't take long to learn the basics. And I'd find it highly unlikely that the astronauts hadn't ever used a camera before in there life up until that point.

Also, from the Apollo 12 LSJ

Conrad - "We practiced this...I started out by just laying rocks around on the floor. One of the things was setting the camera deal; we had the three (focus) distances. And what we did was actually take pictures to calibrate ourselves. They developed that film in training to make sure we stood the right distance."

Bean - "We had to point that (chest-mounted) camera without a viewfinder. (But) we didn't miss a (single) one on the Moon, I don't think."

Conrad - "Yeah, and it was due to the training. We really worked hard at learning to estimate by eye what the camera settings had to be."

Bean - "The first ones (we took in training) weren't very good. But on the Moon, they were all good. So we really had learned in training how to do it by using real film, having it developed, having it debriefed. I think that's why the photography got better with each mission, in general. Because the photographers would impart the (experience gained on a mission) to the next crew and help them be better. So they did get better. And I thought the photography did too."

Factor time: All in all a Hasselblad 500 EL is absolutely unsuitable for fotos under pressure of time because with a Hasselblad 500 EL much consideration and time is needed for a good foto, but a "moon walk" lasts only some hours

The point of the Apollo photography was for documentation purposes. They weren't trying to take "good photos" (by good photos I mean nicely composed shots with nice lighting), but simply just documenting the mission and the environment.

I think I'll stop there, as I don't want to spend hours on this post. It's clear that the guy who put this site together hasn't researched the subject enough and I see a lot of the same old tired arguments.

reply to post by captiva


If you look a little farther back you can clearly see a nother astronat in the back ground. Sry about my spealing am in a herry

Originally posted by captiva
If you look at the original 5903 at

www.lpi.usra.edu...

Theres something missing...the photographer.

The shadow on the visor is that of the subject....anyone explain that please?

Here's a high resolution of that photo. I can see the reflection of the other astronaut quite clearly. www.hq.nasa.gov...

reply to post by ImplausibleDeniability

I own a Hasselblad 500 C/M. It has a ground glass framing element on the top, not the back of the body. The astronauts would simply have to look down to see at least part of the image if not all of it, making composition a fairly simple process.

The article state that you can't look done through the helmet.

Additionally, considering they are constantly bathed in the brightest of sunlight, the cameras would easily have been preset with a very small f-stop and a predictable exposure setting...the light source would never change in intensity after all.

I'm not a photographer. but some basic knowledge.
The light source is the sun. his intensity is fixed. Yeah.
If you are in the shadow of the LEM or on the other side, the light intensity on the subject is very different. No ?
You have to tune the diaphragm or time exposure. No ?
I don't really know but as you have the same model of camera, your post are always welcome.

I don't know for stars.

But earth and moon have some differences.
Moon dust reflect only 7% of sun light.
The moon don't have atmosphere. No diffuse light.
Wikipedia

Good:
The Moon's surface is airless. On Earth, our thick atmosphere scatters sunlight, spreading it out over the whole sky. That's why the sky is bright during the day. Without sunlight, the air is dark at night, allowing us to see stars. On the Moon, the lack of air means that the sky is dark. Even when the Sun is high off the horizon during full day, the sky near it will be black. If you were standing on the Moon, you would indeed see stars, even during the day.

from www.badastronomy.com
follow link for more explanations aboutwhy stars are not visible in picture.









[edit on 22-12-2009 by mixmix]

reply to post by mixmix


He says there are two spotlights hanging from the ceiling of the studio that the photos were taken...but where are the two shadows? each object should have two shadows.

reply to post by dirtydog


I have it is not an astronaut nor does the focusing distance of the 80mm f/2.8 Planar T* (20028) 35mm eq 50 mm equate to the white square you see as the photographer at the back of the visor.

Respects

This is the zoom re the visor...I dont see the square as a photographer.
This is from the original high res image.. CS3 plus scaling with fractals pro


[im][atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/42a0244cc2ab.jpg[/atsimg][/im]

[edit on 22-12-2009 by captiva]

reply to post by jra

Quoting from the site. Heat protection: Any heat protection for the camera is missing for temperatures on the moon of plus 100 and minus 100 degrees C. The cameras are only painted in silver for that. The temperature of the Moon has little to do with the temperature of the camera. Just because the Lunar surface can reach over 100C doesn't mean the camera will ever get that hot. Different materials reflect and absorb heat at different rates. Something that's shiny and silver will reflect most of the Suns energy and thus will not absorb much heat.

from wikipedia: Surface temperature

During the lunar day, the surface temperature averages 107 °C, and during the lunar night, it averages −153 °C.[49]

Temperature surface cause there is no atmosphere.

So I'm agree with you that the temperature of the camera wil change depends if it's lighted by the sun or not. I don't know if the camera have a heating system but it's have to operate between -100 and 100C about.
I don't have data about the camera temperature. I will check.

Education: The astronauts have no photographic education. They have no idea how to handle a manual camera with exposure time, shutter and sharpness. The astronauts would not be able to make perfect fotos with a Hasselblad 500 EL even on Earth This is an outright lie. The astronauts spent lots of time practising with the camera's on Earth. Plus, operating a camera isn't exactly rocket science, it doesn't take long to learn the basics. And I'd find it highly unlikely that the astronauts hadn't ever used a camera before in there life up until that point.

I've already say it. They are not beginner.
So I'm agree with you.
I will search for training datas.
But professional camera (not automatic) without seeker in a space suit very rigid (first model), not so easy. Need training, sure.
And as your quote show it, they have direct live confirmation from control center for camera settings.

118:07:57 Conrad: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. (Pause) Want to get a picture of that? 118:08:03 Bean: Sure do. Let me get it set up. (Pause) Right. (Pause) 5 (foot focus) at f/8. (Pause)

But this is apollo 12 log. I will check for apollo 11.

for focus, I don't know.
can a Hasselblad 500 give his opinion ?

And many of these "not so good pictures" were in cover of famous magazines.


OPwork: Please, each picture of the frame have allready been discuss in multiple other threads. Please don't make this thread focus only on a single picture.



The article argue that:

Under the circumstances -- with a camera fixed on the chest -- in an astronaut suit where it's not possible through the seeker -- without the mirror in the seeker (Wisnewski, p.157) -- with "moon astronauts" without long experience in making fotos (Wisnewski, p.153) -- with radioactive radiation which has a negative influence on the films (Wisnewski, p.157) perfect, sharp "moon fotos" with partly perfect arranged sceneries are not possible (Wisnewski, p.157).This is NO conspiracy theory, stupid Wikipedia, but these are facts.