It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Who took this photo on the moon ?

page: 10
105
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by TheScale
 


we can beat around this all day..but there is no suit on that guy..simple as that..you don't see one and i don't either, guys, it's just a practice run, that's all it is...




posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by baddmove
 


the reason u dont see one is because the reflection of the astronaut is made up of about 80 pixels, therefore your not able to see any detail just a blurry outline of a human form, the shadow however is quite clearly defined



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by baddmove
reply to post by TheScale
 


we can beat around this all day..but there is no suit on that guy..simple as that..you don't see one and i don't either, guys, it's just a practice run, that's all it is...



links to 2 HI -RES shots of reflections in astronaut helmets

First one look at it DO YOU think the ISS in the reflection is CURVED no the helmet distorts the image.
Also look at the reflection of the lights next to his head look how distorted they look.
The image that ppk55 posted is not anywhere near as good as these but the astronaut in the reflection in his photo is at a similar position to the ISS in the pic below so his image is distorted but the posiition of his shadow in the picture allows us to see his backpack.

chamorrobible.org... 20070815-large.jpg

Another hi res shot

spaceflight.nasa.gov...



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by baddmove
reply to post by TheScale
 


we can beat around this all day..but there is no suit on that guy..simple as that..you don't see one and i don't either, guys, it's just a practice run, that's all it is...



links to 2 HI -RES shots of reflections in astronaut helmets

First one look at it DO YOU think the ISS in the reflection is CURVED no the helmet distorts the image.
Also look at the reflection of the lights next to his head look how distorted they look.
The image that ppk55 posted is not anywhere near as good as these but the astronaut in the reflection in his photo is at a similar position to the ISS in the pic below so his image is distorted but the posiition of his shadow in the picture allows us to see his backpack.

chamorrobible.org... 20070815-large.jpg

Another hi res shot

spaceflight.nasa.gov...

First not loading similar pic

cache.boston.com...

[edit on 23-4-2010 by wmd_2008]

[edit on 23-4-2010 by wmd_2008]



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 02:21 AM
link   
The reason i don't see one is because there isn't one..simple as that..this is not a moon photo.it is clearly a studio picture and maybe not meant for public veiwing, but somehow it got out..there is no suit on that guy in the reflection, you don't see one and i don't either..i will look for the N.A.S.A picture where they are doing this, gimme a little while..this is not from the moon..o.k?



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 02:24 AM
link   
Pretty interesting! Here's a zoom of the reflection of the astronaut in the visor...



And here's what the astronaut should look like with his suit. Notice the 'missing' PLSS backpack. However, it's probably due the lighting effect. Strange nonetheless!



Good observation!



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 02:27 AM
link   
The Apollo 17 mission was designed to obtain the most extensive quantity and variety of photography of any mission thus far. There were several different varieties of photographic equipment, both on the surface and in orbit. The camera equipment operated on the lunar surface or in the LM by Astronauts Scott and Irwin included three 70-millimeter Hasselblad Data Cameras (HDC, LM1, LM2), a 16-millimeter Data Acquisition Camera (DAC), and a color TV camera (LM4) or Lunar Surface TV camera. The main photographic tasks during orbit were performed with the Mapping Camera System and the Panoramic Camera, which were in the SIM bay. Various tasks were also accomplished using four command module cameras: a 70-millimeter Hasselblad electric camera, a 16-millimeter Maurer DAC, a 35-millimeter Nikon, and a Westinghouse color TV camera.

SOURCE



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionHunterX
 


LOOK at his shadow you see the back pack there thats the problem the image in the reflection is distoted due to the curve look at the pic in my post above.

[edit on 23-4-2010 by wmd_2008]



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 02:46 AM
link   
I have a question. Its nothing about the reflection or that.. I just wonder why there is the number "32" on the ground? Sorry if this has already been asked about.

Is the number there just becouse its maybe picture 32? But it seems like the number is IN the dirt. Maybe becouse it is stage '32'?

You can see the number at the bottom, and then look at the middle of the picture.

Thank you.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 03:06 AM
link   
i would like to point out that on the top of his helmit somthing was also blacked out ..good position for wires maybe? ...pardon my spelling and also i havent taken the time to read all the posts if it has already been posted ..sry i am just super tired pulled a 18h day at work ....many thanks my good men

Nephi



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ypperst
I have a question. Its nothing about the reflection or that.. I just wonder why there is the number "32" on the ground? Sorry if this has already been asked about.

Is the number there just becouse its maybe picture 32? But it seems like the number is IN the dirt. Maybe becouse it is stage '32'?

You can see the number at the bottom, and then look at the middle of the picture.

Thank you.


Seems to me like that was just drawn in the dirt. Who knows why they may have done it. I don't think they would mark "32" as in "stage 32" in the dirt like that. Also, remember that the number "32" will stay there forever, or until something/someone messes it up. Perhaps it meant something to the astronauts.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 03:13 AM
link   
one more thought ..if this has been posted once more i am sry ..i looking at the grade of the slope it would seem to me that the foot prints seem to be in rly good shape givin the fact that the suits are very diffcult to walk in you would think they would be a little more messy walking up a grade like that ..but the again it could be the effect of space eh ..any more thoughts on the order of them prints ?


also if the prints where from the person taking the pic if he went up and around to take the pick there would be a step missing at the top ..also if he walked up then back down it would make a whole diferint print ..they just seem odd to me i guess

[edit on 23-4-2010 by Nephi1337]

[edit on 23-4-2010 by Nephi1337]



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


Not to rain on YOUR parade matey, but only TWO members were supposed to actually descend down to the moon, with the third member orbiting above in the command module.

So..only TWO supposedly walked on the moon.

I can't believe the amount of people that had given a star to your post..



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by GuyverUnit I
Sheesh
Nine pages in already. Well I'll still reply.

If you look at a mirrored ball, no matter where you stand you will see your own reflection.

Therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE for that picture to be taken without the photographer catching the image of his own reflection on the mirrored visor of the astronauts helmet.

A real point of confusion would be if there were NOBODY reflected in the visor.
[edit on 22-4-2010 by GuyverUnit I]


Whilst I agree on some of it the main point is incorrect, yes if you have a mirrored ball you will see yourself in the picture BUT while the shape of the ball will distort the image it cannot alter the perspective of the person. If the person was not looking at the camera it cannot bend the persons head around to make it look like he is and vice versa.

So if I look at his helmet face full on you will see in the reflection both sides of my face but if I'm looking at an angle it cannot possibly show both sides of the face as it can't see them.

So what we have in the photo is a man standing at an angle that is not straight on to the visor and since his camera has to be pointed at the visor as it's mounted on the suit then to take the shot he would have HAD to have been shown facing forward so it would have been impossible to see the side of him no matter how warped the image.

A reflection on a curve still truly reflects whats seen but will warp away from the center of the line of sight, it cannot adjust 3D space...

SO again we have a man not looking at the person he's supposed to be taking a photo of and from the reflection does not have a back pack nor camera mounted on his chest and the fact that his arms are are groin height rules out another hand held camera unless you think he has 'dick O cam' (sorry for that).

So we have a real odd scenario here, the visor will be show what's directly looking at it but the only person in the reflections is very far away and at the wrong angle?

SO, where is the real camera operator

If you think my theory is incorrect then just take a picture in a mirror, or get one of those reflective balloons and use that. You can't get a reflection of not looking straight on unless you are NOT looking straight on, bends or not, the only way would be to have a reflection of another reflection being seen in the visor and that's not happening..

[edit on 23-4-2010 by Mclaneinc]



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 03:22 AM
link   
1) Whilst the shadow suggests he is wearing the life support system, if you look at his colleague in the photo, the pack clearly extends to the top of the head, and the width of the shoulders.

As far as I'm aware, the back pack could not be shifted; it was held firmly in place.

Given the aspect of the astronaut in the reflection, despite the distortion of the visor, his back pack should be clearly visible (it would be blocking the view of the outline of his head as the angle would put the back pack MORE into view, not less). It is very clearly not there, despite the shadow.

2) If you look at the angle of the astronaut in the reflection, you are as if looking down from slightly above.

Cameras and reflections in curved surfaces have this habit of the lens appearing dead center in any surfaces that are 90 degrees to the camera. In the case of the curved visor, even if not constant in radius, would have the camera dead center in this reflection right where the camera on the astronaut should be, and the reflection would be such that you would appear to be slightly below his head. That you seem to be slightly above is impossible.

If you look above the head of the reflected astronaut, you can clearly see scratches in the Moon's surface in the distance, extending into the dark background. I suspect this is evidence of tampering of the photo to remove the real camera from the photo, but not edited cleanly.

If you take this mark to be the actual camera taking the photo, the aspect of the reflected astronaut is correct.

This is the most compelling photo I've seen yet. Even better that it is hosted by NASA.

[edit on 23-4-2010 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Fangula
 


No...these numbers are NOT drawn in the dirt, or anywhere else.

They are simply catalogue numbers given to the image sets.

They are on all images.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 03:35 AM
link   
Also, I am stunned no one has given this thought, if he's the guy taking the picture (which we know he's not) but lets pretend he is, as it's a real time event you see, how come his hands are at groin height?

Surely they would be up around the chest area at the point of the shutter being released as what you see in the photo is at the exact time of the shutter going off.

I'm pretty sure the suits don't have a genital shutter button on them...



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 03:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Mclaneinc
 


hey mc i am new so i cant message you yet but i like how you think and i was just wondering if you could give some thought on my post or am i just crazy thinking about theese foot prints ?



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 03:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Confound it Phage!

I was snipping images and getting ready to post a pretty conclusive post detailing how it appears to be one thing, but by using the rock positions, the markings on the rocks, the angle of the photo etc etc, but ensuring the thread didnt already have it, and here you are on page 3 no less!!



Not fair, I got excited for nothing there...

Good job!




posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 04:02 AM
link   
I'll happily admit this one is rather interesting.

BUT.... nope. First off, you need to shake off the (admittedly very strong) impression that the reflected astronaut is facing away at 45 degrees or so. It's simply the lighting and a bit of pareidolia. (And be very careful - MANY folk here are posting INTERPOLATED images, that smooth out the image and add FALSE data, so its appearance depends entirely on the enlarging algroithm used.) (Added for clarity) - At the enlarged sizes being displayed by many, the image should be PIXELLATED as shown in the video below. If it isn't, then you are looking at false detail.

Note that the astronaut is, at best, 'resolved' by only about 17 miserable pixels wide at his girth. And the fact that much of him is about the same greyscale level as the background, means that the background and the astronaut are not clearly delineated.

But don't listen to me, look and listen to this posh Englishperson..



Yes, it's hard to shake off that angled impression, but his analysis is very thorough. And I love the way he uses the most famous image of all...

The astronaut is NOT facing away, he just looks as though he is from the lighting angles. And face on, you don't see much of the PLSS, and some of the detail is simply lost in the similarly shaded background.

[edit on 23-4-2010 by CHRLZ]



new topics

top topics



 
105
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join