apollo 11: 100% perfect picture without seeker

page: 3
32
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   
The lense: and how it works

the 80mm f/2.880mm f/2.8 Planar T* is made by Carl Zeiss of West Germany for the Hasselblad and is coated. The 80mm has the renowned T* Zeiss multi-coating.

People have a love-hate relationship with the early Hassie lenses. They love the sharpness but really hate the linked shutter-speed and aperture dials. Hasselblads use the EV metering system, which links shutter-speed and aperture to produce a single Exposure Value. This allows you to easily dial in your light reading from an EV friendly light meter (such as the metered finders above), then quickly adjust aperture and shutter-speed in relation to each other without changing the exposure. As long as you have a light meter that reads in EV, it's a great system. It's a pain in the neck
otherwise.

No light meter mentioned as having went to the moon. Without one chances of those photographs being as they are are becoming more miraculous by the minute.


Respects




posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Was wondering if anyone could help me figure out what the other white spot is on the helmet reflection in one of the pic listed. Its the pic of Aldrin taken from above, with a fixed camera on the chest Cant seem to figure it out from left to right it would be ?-earth-armstrong-shuttle. Might be flag dont know position just looking for some help on this



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by killersheep
 


What number is the photograph you are talking about? is it from the original site or from the ops paste?

Respects



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   
How come there is no landing crater? How come the landing struts have 0 moon dust on them.? How come the surface never apparently got disturbed when a multi ton piece of equipment landing on the surface at semi high speed.? Finally why is there no photographer in the face plate on the famous astronaut photo?

P.S. Finally finally. How did the flag move when the astronaut walked past it.. I was under the impression that was impossible on the moon.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   
conspiracy dolts still at it I see. Just take a look at the pictures that have been take from space and earth of the landing site. The lunar lander can be clearly seen as well as trials in the lunar dust the astronauts made while on their excursions. No wait. I know, we sent a movie crew up there to build a fake set so everyone would think the crew actually landed. Where do you clowns come up with this stuff?



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by bladerunner44
 


Are you a photographer?...if not there must be some other thread worthy of your input

Respects

[edit on 22-12-2009 by captiva]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by killersheep
 


I can't give answer but there's a lot of thread on ATS.
make a search like aldrin moon picture.

some ATS result:

- Why does NASA airbrush this picture of Buzz Aldrin on the moon?

-

270 pages


John Lear's Moon Pictures on ATS

and many more



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   
As a professional photographer, after reviewing the high res photographs my opinion is that yes, the photographs have been enhanced post processing.

I have doubts about the validity of the photographer in the zoom I posted of the visor. More importantly having read the specs of the lens used I must agree with those that said the camera could not have produced those photographs in the environment it was supposidly used.

I base this on the need to dial in settings on the lens and the requirement for a light meter to do it.

Respects



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by bladerunner44
 




conspiracy dolts still at it I see. Just take a look at the pictures that have been take from space and earth of the landing site. The lunar lander can be clearly seen as well as trials in the lunar dust the astronauts made while on their excursions. No wait. I know, we sent a movie crew up there to build a fake set so everyone would think the crew actually landed. Where do you clowns come up with this stuff?


This thread is not about if apollo astronauts have land or not.

Just about this article, the apollo 11 EVA pictures taken by astronauts in a space suit by this camera.

So I assume that your answer is HOAX or clown conspiracy.


jra

posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by captiva
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




What's with the horrible quality? I gave you a link to a high resolution version. At the bottom of the page of your link also contains a link to a 4mb version. Here's a crop.



You can see other astronaut quite clearly.

[edit on 22-12-2009 by jra]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Ah my apologies, I stand corrected. I only saw the 4 mb pic and thats what I downloaded. Thanks for that, and for clearing up the photographer, that concerned me.

Appreciated and respects



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by dirtydog
Oh for the one I'm ignoring we don't see stars during day light because of the atmosphere


So you think on earth at night the atmosphere just disapears.... really, some people should just stop and think before they post

[edit on 22/12/09 by dereks]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   

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?

Respects


Click on the 4mb jpeg on the bottom, zoom in. Vóila.

[edit to add] I really should read the other responses before I reply


[edit on 22/12/2009 by PsykoOps]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by captiva
 





Ah my apologies, I stand corrected. I only saw the 4 mb pic and thats what I downloaded. Thanks for that, and for clearing up the photographer, that concerned me. Appreciated and respects


No problem for me.
All these pictures have already been studied and discusses hours and hours.

As professional photographer, can you give some input about your succes rate by roll for this kind of camera or focus success rate ?


If somebdy have doubt just make a search with the name of the picture.
like moon AS-11-5904 before posting.

AS-11-5904 have not been debunked

it's a joke. it's the "An extreme close-up of possible a space suit"

SoylentGreenIsPeople give me some time to check.
I edit the first post to 95%.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aquarius1
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.


It's not about believing a particular side. If you investigate thoroughly yourself, you would discover exactly the same as the badastronomy article states.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 08:06 PM
link   
A few points, because I am in a hurry:

For starters, here is an excellent website about the lunar Hasselblads.

1.) The Ziese-Biogon Lense the astronauts used was modified with detents to make it easier to get the proper setting. They also installed paddles on each ring to make them easier to use with gloves on.

B.) The film magazines had the exposure (f-stop) settings for several contingencies printed on the top.



III.) Whether you are on the Moon, in orbit, or in your back yard at night (the atmosphere only blocks 10% - 40% of the light passing through it), photographing stars requires long exposures - anywhere from 30 seconds to several minutes - to get the stars to register on the film at all, and that's with the aperture wide-open. Try it. The astronauts typically shot at 1/250sec shutter speed and f5.6 to f11 aperture.
Thus, in any properly exposed photograph of a sunlit object, the stars (well, other than the sun itself
) will never, ever, ever, never, ever, EVER APPEAR.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by GArnold
 





How come there is no landing crater? How come the landing struts have 0 moon dust on them.?


good question ?
the landind crater and the dust.

I don't see any dust in the pictures.
There should be some fog on the ground.
Astronauts have complain about dusts.
if somebody have the answers ?

Long break.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by mixmix
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.

That's a good point, but the fact still remains that even without the pictures at the beginning and end of a roll, there are still many "poorly composed" pictures.

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



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by mixmix
reply to post by GArnold
 



How come there is no landing crater? How come the landing struts have 0 moon dust on them.?

good question ?
the landind crater and the dust.

I don't see any dust in the pictures.
There should be some fog on the ground.
Astronauts have complain about dusts.
if somebody have the answers ?

Long break.

The engine was shut down about 3 to 5 feet above the surface (the 5 foot long "contact probes" on the bottom of the pads told the astronauts when to cut the engine). Plus, the engine was able to be throttled, therefore the engine thrust was throttled way back by the time they were about to land.

Even with the throttled-back thrust and the engines being shut down 4 feet above the surface, some dust was in fact kicked up. However, because the Moon lacks atmosphere, the dust did not "hang in the air" -- the dust was simply kicked up in a perfectly parabolic path and fell back to the surface. By the time the foot pads were close to the surface, the engine was off and the dust was already settled.

Dust on the Moon does not act like dust on Earth. Without atmosphere the dust will not "hang there" -- it will instead fall back relatively quickly.

There was no big crater under the engine nozzle for the same reason. As I said above, the engine thrust was throttled way back AND the engine was shut off when the LEM was about 4 feet from the surface. The amount of direct thrust hitting the surface was very small and not very powerful.


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



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by mixmix
 


Not sure about the whole keeping things centered angle, but all the stuff about "shadows being wrong" and additional lighting being needed has been repeatedly debunked and shown to be false. Go out on a sunny day and check out the shadows, they don't all point the same directions.

The moan hoax theory has been well and truly debunked numerous times by science.

I prefer to take a common sense approach though. What reason would NASA have to fake the moon landing or the photos/footage of the moon landing?

So far the only two reasons to the above question I've ever gotten are: "To win the space race with the Russians" and "To keep us from knowing about the aliens" both are wild speculative theories that have no evidence attached to them.

If we had faked the moon landings the Russian scientists would have realized this and gone ape about it soon after the hoax (as would numerous moon scientists around the world, someone would have raised the alarm).

In the end a hoax would involve so many people that it would be more expensive and risky to fake than to actually go to the moon. Not to mention the fact they actually built the Saturn V and designed all the equipment to go to the moon, why design all that if they never intended to go? Did they shoot the Saturn V into space empty? Or is it JUST the photos that are fake?

I think the iconic images in these photos are real. As much as it pains me to believe official stories I think we definitely went to the moon and I've seen nothing on the internet, this site included, to dissuade me. But hey, maybe they did fake a few of the more famous photos, maybe photography turned out really tough to do on the moon so they faked them on a set, but I think Nasa would come clean about it after all these years, after all they came clean about losing some of the original footage didn't they?





top topics
 
32
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join