apollo 11: 100% perfect picture without seeker

page: 6
32
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by mixmix
I don't found any debunk for AS 16-117-18841


What is there to debunk? How long was the picture there for? What type of plastic was the cover?


Please, provide link to any explanation ?


explanation for what exactly?




posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 05:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Saint Exupery
 





Actually, this is a pretty good thread. The OP came out with a position. He based it on what he'd seen and referenced it in the post. He defended his position, but was open to new data. Others chimed in with better information. Lots of people learned from it, and the OP acknowleged this. Win!


Thanks.
My opinion is open minded.
I'm not the writer of this article.
And I learn a lot of things.

It's christmas Holidays.
Lot's of people are fan of moon, astronomic, astrophysics, ...

Come back to topic.

I spend some time on google moon map.
And sometime, it's not so easy to naviguate.
And to found the apollo 11 land site, it's like a dot on the big map.

So I post a some tutorial, to found fastly apollo 11 landing site on a moon maps.
Sure, you can just type "apollo 11" in the search label.
Too easy.

Start google earth, switch to moon,
Remove also all layers indications, flags, Human artifacts from google moon options. Too easy

Start




Step 1: move the move on his North South Axis to see this picture to see the 2 big white craters.




Step 2: zoom




Step 3: zoom again in the red triangle. 2 small white crater are in blue.




Step 4: zoom ito the green triangle




Step 5: zoom in the green triangle, see the white crater inside the green triangle.




Step 6: zoom in the down of this white crater, you will see a black triangular crater.




Step7: zoom in the down of the black triangle.



Step 8: zoom in the circle




Step 9: zoom




Step 10: zoom you are arrive on apollo 11 landing site.




Google earth provive also historical maps



google earth historical map of apollo 11 landing site



Credit: All images from google earth, reduced 25%, jpeg format.

If somebody have the name of the black triangular crater ?




[edit on 24-12-2009 by mixmix]

[edit on 24-12-2009 by mixmix]



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 



instead of believing silly conspiracy theory sites, have a look at www.badastronomy.com..., written by a real scientist.


but you easily forget:

Scientists who use facts to tell a story are liars and part of the conspiracy

idiots in their moms basement who spend all day looking at NASA photographs to try and find flaws with a picture take 40 years ago are heros and truth seekers that have pulled back the veil from our eyes.

Duh!


and would you look at that!



There are tracks on the moon! Its like someone landed there and had some sort of vehicle that leaves tracks behind! I'll bet the government is trying to cover that up too. Was probably just the reptilians riding on their giant-king-cobras


[edit on 24-12-2009 by Snarf]



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Snarf
 





There are tracks on the moon! Its like someone landed there and had some sort of vehicle that leaves tracks behind! I'll bet the government is trying to cover that up too. Was probably just the reptilians riding on their giant-king-cobras


the trace are already explained in a precedent link.
LRO Gets Additional View of Apollo 11 Landing Site

It's just footprint trace or activity of apollo 11 astronauts.


Happy Christmas to all ATS readers

[edit on 24-12-2009 by mixmix]



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by mixmix
 



It's just footprint trace or activity of apollo 11 astronauts.


I realize this, lol. Apparently sarcasm doesn't read well through keyboard strokes....i was throwing the same dumb argument back at the moongaters that they throw at us.



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 08:25 AM
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 ?

Likes the sound of his/her voice


I used a camera many many years ago with no viewfinder and its freaking difficult. Let alone depressing a shutter button with thick gloves!

In fact anyone can try it! Get a camera hold it to your chest and take some photos some of which must include somebody the same height as you. Remember you have to aim with your body and the camera must stay pressed against your chest. You must take EVERY picture perfectly.
Not a hope in hell.



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Snarf
 



No problem.
You have spank yourself.

another link to a NASA map of apollo 11 landing site.


Sorry, there's no UFO, Aliens, Dragon, Dungeons, Stealth fighters in this thread.



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Snarf

There are tracks on the moon! Its like someone landed there and had some sort of vehicle that leaves tracks behind! I'll bet the government is trying to cover that up too. Was probably just the reptilians riding on their giant-king-cobras


[edit on 24-12-2009 by Snarf]

What vehicle? I think you'll find Apollo 11 had no vehicle. So it must be footprints.....fecking HUGE footprints!!



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 





Why would it be 20km wide coming back? He apparently does not know what a retroreflector does. Read en.wikipedia.org... for some info


Exactly, a reflector and seismeter, .. were leaved on the apollo 11 landing site.

But this thread is not about moon conspiracies.



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by malcr
I used a camera many many years ago with no viewfinder and its freaking difficult. Let alone depressing a shutter button with thick gloves!...

The shutter release was specially modified to work with astronaut gloves. The camera had a pistol grip with a "trigger" shutter release.


...You must take EVERY picture perfectly.
Not a hope in hell.

We already showed in this thread that not every picture was perfect. There were very many imperfect, non-centered pictures.



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Saint Exupery
 





The Zeiss Biogon lens gave the Hasselblad a field of view of ~57 degrees. Such a wide-angle is pretty forgiving of errors in aiming. - camera is fixed on chest The mounting was not rigid. The attachment point was a vertical bayonet on the front of the Remote Control Unit (RCU), and is visible in this side view and this front view. The camera had a vertical slot on the back, and the astronauts could easily slide it on and off of the bayonet. This 16mm film frame shows Buzz (on the left) holding the camera in his right hand and taking the famous series of photos of his boot print. The RCU itself was not rigidly mounted to the front of the astronaut's chest. It hung from straps (also visible in the pictures). Looking at the entire roll, I see a lot of images that are tilted to the left. I think that Neil was grabbing the handle with his right hand and lifting slightly as he squeezed the trigger. This would cause the observed tilt.


Thank you
It's more clear now to understand how to take the pictures of the footprint was done.
Cause if the camera was completly fixed, it's really more difficult.

Thank you also to Soylent Green is people for his post about video camera


This is the camera used on Apollo 11: Apollo 11 Video Camera It was stowed on the outside of the LM and remote-controlled. It took the pictures of Armstrong taking his "Small Step/Giant Leap". The camera was later set up on a tripod. There are pictures of this camera on the Moon on its tripod.



Sorry for delay, but as you should know it takes a lot of time to read all posts and links and to be OP.
It's more easy to be a poster.



[edit on 24-12-2009 by mixmix]



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by mixmix
reply to post by Snarf
 





There are tracks on the moon! Its like someone landed there and had some sort of vehicle that leaves tracks behind! I'll bet the government is trying to cover that up too. Was probably just the reptilians riding on their giant-king-cobras


the trace are already explained in a precedent link.
LRO Gets Additional View of Apollo 11 Landing Site

It's just footprint trace or activity of apollo 11 astronauts.


Happy Christmas to all ATS readers

[edit on 24-12-2009 by mixmix]


WRONG! I just read that whole page and even though it shows a picture similar to the above artists rendering, it makes no mention of tracks on the Moon.

In fact it lists the things in the picture that suggest it is Apollo 11's landing site but the tracks are not mentioned.

Hmm - I wonder.. could these lines you guys call tracks be something else? Makes since to me!


From the website.
"The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera team earlier released two pictures of the Apollo 11 landing site, each taken under different lighting conditions and at lower resolution than this image. This is LROC's first picture of Apollo 11 after LRO dropped into its 50 km mapping orbit. At this altitude, very small details of Tranquility Base can be discerned. The footpads of the LM are clearly discernible. Components of the Early Apollo Science Experiments Package (EASEP) are easily seen, as well. Boulders from West Crater lying on the surface to the east stand out, and the many small craters that cover the moon are visible to the southeast."

I have the picture and blew it up and guess what folks? Nothing NASA says is in this picture is "easily seen" and identifiable. This picture is not proof of anything. Those 'objects' could have been added to the pictures to make us think there is something there.

I am not saying this is so.. I am saying their proof is not proof. Download the original picture and blow it up your self and then ask yourself haven't I seen known hoaxes that look just like this...

Also I have notice about Google Moon. Every single historical place is covered up by artists renderings or some such. There is never a clear picture of the landing sites that look like all of the other terrain outside of the historic area. This is Very Suspect to me!

[edit on 24-12-2009 by JohnPhoenix]



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 





WRONG! I just read that whole page and even though it shows a picture similar to the above artists rendering, it makes no mention of tracks on the Moon.


You are right. I was too fast. There is no reference to tracks or footprint.
It possible I'm confused by another article.
Give me 5 minutes.
OK
Sorry, It's this link:
A Second Look at Apollo 11


The astronaut path to the TV camera is visible, and you may even be able to see the camera stand (arrow). You can identify two parts of the Early Apollo Science Experiments Package (EASEP), the Lunar Ranging Retro Reflector (LRRR) and the Passive Seismic Experiment (PSE). Neil Armstrong's tracks to Little West crater (33 meter diameter) are also visible


oops.


Position of LRO pictures on google map



It's not so easy to position the high noon pictures.

links to LRO web image browser are post on page 5 of this thread
here

[edit on 24-12-2009 by mixmix]

[edit on 24-12-2009 by mixmix]



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 

The astronauts walking tracks are identified in this photo:
www.nasa.gov...

They are also more visible in this photo, but not identified as such:
www.nasa.gov...


[edit on 12/24/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]


jra

posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
Hmm - I wonder.. could these lines you guys call tracks be something else? Makes since to me!


Except that one can generally match up the tracks in the LRO images, with the tracks left by the astronauts in the photos that were taken on the surface during the mission.

For example. Take a look at these frames from the Apollo 11 16mm Data Acquisition Camera (DAC):

-Here we see Armstrong and the area behind him is undisturbed. frame 1
-Armstrong moving the TV camera. Note the darker path he has left. frame 2
-Both astronauts setting up the flag. frame 3
-Armstrong photographs Aldrin saluting the flag frame 4

You can also watch this video of this same 16mm DAC footage here. Just scroll it to 54:30.

This area that we just saw become disturbed by the astronauts is that darkened area we see going out in a north west direction from the LM in this LRO image here

I've spent many hours looking over the LRO images and the Apollo surface photos. Matching up boulders, craters and equipment between them. Trying to pin point where the various geology stations were and even where certain panoramic images were taken. I even matched up a frame from the Apollo 17 DAC taken during its ascent from the Lunar surface, to the LRO's image of the same area (you can see that here). Due to the consistency between the Apollo surface photos and the LRO images, I'd find it hard to believe that they're fake. And I have yet to see any evidence of it being fake.


Also I have notice about Google Moon. Every single historical place is covered up by artists renderings or some such. There is never a clear picture of the landing sites that look like all of the other terrain outside of the historic area. This is Very Suspect to me!


That's because there hasn't been any images that were a high enough resolution, up until now. The renderings are simply used so we can get a better idea of the landing site, rather than looking at some blurry low resolution images. Nothing is being "covered up" in the way you're implying. You can also load images of the landing sites from the LRO in Google Moon. Just click on the orange square near the landing sites. Due note that these were the first images taken when the LRO was still in its commissioning orbit, so the images are in the +1m/pixel range. Eventually they'll update them with the 50cm/pixel images at some point.

[edit on 24-12-2009 by jra]



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by jra
 


jra: I just a look at all your posts on this thread.
Thank you.
No 2 lines post.
Facts, Arguments, Explanation and links.
Good job.
STAR




I've spent many hours looking over the LRO images and the Apollo surface photos. Matching up boulders, craters and equipment between them. Trying to pin point where the various geology stations were and even where certain panoramic images were taken.




Due to the consistency between the Apollo surface photos and the LRO images, I'd find it hard to believe that they're fake. And I have yet to see any evidence of it being fake.


I'm agree with you.
All pictures and all videos on the moon show the same moon.

But LRO HiRes pictures with 0.5m/Pixel are fantastic.
They already bring new focus and new datas for all space researchers, astronomers, moon lovers, ...
This is science in action.

Please can you confirm if the positions of LRO apollo 11 pictures on my google moon picture are good ?


other interesting thread about LRO pictures on ATS:
Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter - Will we finally see the Moon Base?

LRO Sees Apollo 14's Rocket Booster Impact Site

NASA: Little west crater panorama from 5954 to 5961.
Composite image from Erik van Meijgaarden.

from www.hq.nasa.gov... image library

[edit on 25-12-2009 by mixmix]

[edit on 25-12-2009 by mixmix]

[edit on 25-12-2009 by mixmix]



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   
updated picture of step 5




Edit: add this beautifull rock. just a big rock



[edit on 28-12-2009 by mixmix]

[edit on 28-12-2009 by mixmix]



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by pirhanna
 


Post links to some examples of the fake Moon and Mars shots lost od keen amatuer photographers and professionals as well lets see what you are talking about. Explain why you think they are fake as well.



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted 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.

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.


Good post its the hoax believers on here that come back with the same BS reasons.



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by captiva
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


Would not need a light meter you are talking BS mate film when we used it
had a little instruction sheet with it which gave camera settings for specific lighting situations
ie over cast ,sunny,shade etc now as we know the Moon is lit by direct sunlight everything could be preset to get a descent exposure so anyone with a little knowledge could do this and would know this.
So if you ARE a photographer even you should have thought about this.





top topics
 
32
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join