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: 13
105
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Hi, I don't know that much about photography ..but if he took a picture of himself, would we not see the reflection of his camera in his visor ?

Could NASA provide us with a ultra high scan of this image? I'm sure they would still have the photo.
I might ask them.


Originally posted by LifeIsPeculiar
All one has to do to make such a shor ot hold the camera facing oneself, arm extended, and then press the shutter release. Amazing how you guys see evidence of conspiracy where there isn't any.


[edit on 23-4-2010 by adriantba]




posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by StealthKix
I have no idea where this thread is going or where it is going to end up


My prediction:

100% of posters who think photo is a fake will continue to do so.
100% of posters who accept tricks of perspective, shadow and light will accept it as real.
0% will have their opinions swayed.
This picture will appear in another future thread here.
The sun will rise tomorrow.

[edit on 23-4-2010 by kinda kurious]



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
Nobody mentioned that this could just be the astronaut taking a self portrait holding the camera down low and pointing it upwards towards himself.


Thats what I thought, looks like a typical myspace style photo except on the moon.

**EDIT** Never mind the pic that was linked in appeared that way but after seeing the high rez pic after clicking the link you got me wondering now..

[edit on 24-4-2010 by fuse360]



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 01:56 AM
link   
Ok, new news.

I've taken a still of Jack Schmitt at roughly the same angle from the TV broadcast. It's taken at approx the same time as the photo in question was taken. I've roughly placed it into the scene in question. (sorry haven't learnt to insert an image yet)

Remember, this is the same guy at same time and at the same place.

i1028.photobucket.com...

What's amazed me is that not only is Scmitt's backpack missing, so is the extra bit hanging on the left (his right). It's a sample bag or something like that. Clearly visible in the TV footage.

Here's the full still taken from the TV footage (Schmitt is on the right)

i1028.photobucket.com...

I beg someone with better image skills than me to help out.

Here's where I found the TV footage.

www.hq.nasa.gov...
It's around marker 165:06:19

and here is the direct link to the MPEG video .. it's 32MB (right click to save as)

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Also, you can find info about the image in question on page 65 of this PDF
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Also to confirm it's Scmitt, I went through the NASA transcripts while watching the film footage from here

www.hq.nasa.gov...

and here

history.nasa.gov...

[edit on 24-4-2010 by ppk55]



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
Ok, new news.

I've taken a still of Jack Schmitt...


Only got a minute to pop by and I rudely haven't even looked at those links, but ppk, what steps did you take to properly adjust the curve (ie the gamma, black point and white point) of the comparison image/s to match the one in question?

And did you properly take into account the lighting angle, and the possibility that the astronaut in the original pic was in fact facing straight on, even though it *looks* otherwise? Proper analysis does *not* involve making assumptions because something looks a certain way...

Seriously, I am trying to help here. Because if you don't do this sort of analysis properly, thoroughly, and with a full knowledge of all the requisite intricacies of imaging, then it's a waste of time.

I hope, when I get around to having a good look, that you will pleasantly surprise me. (If not, you've got a day or three before I have a chance to spend any serious time on this.. so don't waste your time!)



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 03:00 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


Take a look at those links before you make any comment on them!



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 04:30 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


OK...i have downloaded a series of images yesterday, that show Schmitt complete with visor reflections, at approx the same distance as the image PPK posted.

Give me a bit of time, and i'll post them here.

I've also found another image...one that has astounded me..and i've seen plenty of 'anomaly' images over the years.

It's an image from the early space probe era, and for Pro anomaly people, it will leave them aghast, as it did me..for 'genuine' anti anomaly types, i'm sure it will at the very least, cause them to rethink their position.

For me, it speaks volumes as to why the official record was filmed in a studio.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


Take a look at those links before you make any comment on them!


I just did. First up, the comparison image is from a video capture, which has a very different response curve to film, and clearly the background grey is quite different. So my comments about gamma/black-/white-point stand. That issue has not been addressed.

Also the lighting is coming from the OPPOSITE direction! Did you not notice that?

Like I said, I will be back later to look at the original image in some detail, using a proper, documented and repeatable process (in other words, you will be able to verify every step of what I show, and question it).

It looks to me that the 'boozyscientist' video I showed earlier is the best explanation so far - have you looked at that, and what are your comments - which part do you dispute? If you can be specific, it may help me with my 'presentation'.

After all, I answered *your* question...



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ
I just did. First up, the comparison image is from a video capture, which has a very different response curve to film, and clearly the background grey is quite different. So my comments about gamma/black-/white-point stand. That issue has not been addressed.

Also the lighting is coming from the OPPOSITE direction! Did you not notice that?


Quoted for AGREEMENT and to add:

While I commend PPK for a well documented post, I am afraid the comparison is Apples to Oranges.

1. The video clips are kinescoped (film shot off TV Monitor) to begin with.
2. They have been encoded to mpeg or real media. (Contrast affected)
3. The lighting is different.
4. As pointed out above, the angle is different.
5. The video clip inset will not yield aberrations inherent in visor reflection. affected by lighting, detail, pixelation.

In short, taking an almost full screen video image and reducing scale and reversing it to match a photographic image IS NOT a valid comparison.

If anything, the source video from which it was frame grabbed places BOTH ASTRONAUTS at the scene adding to credibility, IMO. Source Image by ppk55


[edit on 24-4-2010 by kinda kurious]



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Dont know if this helps but this is the boulder they were phographing.

this is schmitt standing next to it.



link to full image:
upload.wikimedia.org...

[edit on 24-4-2010 by MR BOB]



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by spikey


I'm very insterested on this "another image", how much will it take to show it man?

On-topic: I think the image is kinda funny, but aren't we all forgetting something? With the resolution artifacts (zoom and so) the backpack maybe just mixed with the background. Just a thought.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by the_chilla
Hi everyone,

I've done an analysis of the image and colour coordinated different elements that appear in the visor and in the photograph itself. From the analysis you'll see that (as some people have already stated) the distortion caused by the curvature in the visor/helmet makes it appear as though the first astronaut is looking in a different direction when in fact he is the one who took the photo straight on toward the direction the photo is taken - toward the cave. Based on the analysis of objects around the scene you can clearly see how the position of the astronaut who took the photos is relative to those objects.

To sum it up, he is facing straight on toward the cave. He took the photo. Case closed.

moon_pic_analysis.jpg (2.0 MB)

j.imagehost.org...

the_chilla


Damn, you beat me, I was going to a similar mock up. Though the reflection is a distorted mirror ball type reflection all you have to do is look for markers (like the cave entrance) and compare them to the angle of the reflected astronaut. Though it looks weird, if he is angled towards the cave and the picture itself is aimed towards the cave then everything is lined up. To me it looks correct.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by kinda kurious

Originally posted by StealthKix
I have no idea where this thread is going or where it is going to end up


My prediction:

100% of posters who think photo is a fake will continue to do so.
100% of posters who accept tricks of perspective, shadow and light will accept it as real.
0% will have their opinions swayed.
This picture will appear in another future thread here.
The sun will rise tomorrow.

[edit on 23-4-2010 by kinda kurious]



You need to change the percentages. I changed my mind.

I do hope the sun rises tomorrow.



peace.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   
A photographic picture taken by a Mr Invisible ? Very interesting. So, if the astronaut seen reflected in the space suit helmet, did not take the picture, then who did ? Is it possible that the image is in fact a CGI computer graphics Image ? Created by computer, using what at that time would have been advanced softwares and computer hardwares ? My own opinion, based on the idea that all the Apollo missions were a fake, is that in fact the images are actually CGI computer graphics imagery. At that time in the 1970's computers were very much reserved for the government and military. NASA [national aeronautics and space administration] would certainly have had such advanced equipment. If the movie industry were asked to create such imagery today, as you know, it would certainly be very easy. Even I have created some pretty convincing images and animations using TERRAGEN. You can watch my humble Sci-Fi artistic creations at DEEPBLUESKY.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnySeagull
 


Roger that. What is your FROM and TO and WHY?

Just kurious.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by CAELENIUM
 


Please read any of the previous 12 pages. The astronaut in the visor did take the photograph. It has been pretty conclusively demonstrated several times.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 04:46 PM
link   
OK here is my rebuttal to ppk55

Using your technique, I scoured available Quicktime Movies from:

www.hq.nasa.gov...

With the ability in QT to jog frame-by-frame, I "cherry-picked" a frame grab from
the clip. Unlike ppk55, I grabbed a frame which MINIMIZES the PLSS. It looks QUITE SIMILAR to the visor reflected image. FYI, the frame grab occurs @ :01 into clip. Frames on EITHER SIDE of my grab clearly show backpack. It just happened to be the precise angle (like in Visor) that masks PLSS. (QT clip 1:67:09:30) FULL CLIP HERE


Not attacking ppk55, just trying to make a point. Regards.

[edit on 24-4-2010 by kinda kurious]



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 12:50 AM
link   
You certainly did 'cherry pick' "kinda kurious". You decided to take an image from geology station 8 ... not 6 .. which is where the image in question was taken from.

You also captured the WRONG astronaut. You got Eugene Cernan instead of Schmitt. This is very important, because Cernan was wearing his sample bag on the OPPOSITE side.

Here's a clearer pic that shows this. (Cernan of the left)

i1028.photobucket.com...

Regardless of your errors, I was still happy to do a rough composite of the wrong astronaut, at the wrong place and at the wrong time, and this is the result.

i1028.photobucket.com...

I'll leave it up to others to decide if Schmitt on the right could have taken this photo, facing the way he is.


Originally posted by kinda kurious
I "cherry-picked" a frame grab from
the clip. Unlike ppk55, I grabbed a frame which MINIMIZES the PLSS.



[edit on 25-4-2010 by ppk55]



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
You certainly did 'cherry pick' "kinda kurious". You decided to take an image from geology station 8 ... not 6 .. which is where the image in question was taken from.

You also captured the WRONG astronaut. You got Eugene Cernan instead of Schmitt. This is very important, because Cernan was wearing his sample bag on the OPPOSITE side.

Here's a clearer pic that shows this. (Cernan of the left)

i1028.photobucket.com...

Regardless of your errors, I was still happy to do a rough composite of the wrong astronaut, at the wrong place and at the wrong time, and this is the result.

i1028.photobucket.com...

I'll leave it up to others to decide if Schmitt on the right could have taken this photo, facing the way he is.


Originally posted by kinda kurious
I "cherry-picked" a frame grab from
the clip. Unlike ppk55, I grabbed a frame which MINIMIZES the PLSS.



[edit on 25-4-2010 by ppk55]


Well, you lost me there...

If we are simply trying to ascertain if the reflection *could* be that of an astronaut with PLSS, why exactly does it matter which astronaut we use to demonstrate that? Shouldn't we look for the best possible match for the astronaut in terms of lighting and pose, preferably on FILM so that the response curve is comparable?

So far you have only managed to post one with the light falling the wrong way because you haven't reversed it..., it's from an excessively contrasty video camera and you haven't made any attempt to match the gamma curve or black- & white-points...

Seriously, that fact ruins any attempt to make a useful comparison. I'll show why in more detail later, but it should be obvious from the 'boozyscientist' video I posted earlier - details can easily be lost in the background, if you make the images match.

So, cherry picking works both ways, you know. You can't accuse others of doing it while doing it yourself.

If there is some difference between the astronauts that is significant, you need to specify precisely what that is. Otherwise I'll be looking at images from other Apollo missions as well**, to try to match the pose and lighting as accurately as I can. I'm not quite sure what you mean by the sample bag - are you claiming to be able to unambiguously resolve it in the reflection? That would be impressive, given you have only a few pixels of resolution..

And may I ask the obvious - you *are* remembering that this is a *reflection* and that the astronaut's orientation is a mirror image, ie swapped left-right...?


(...added)
** - Lest anyone think I'm just mouthing off about doing a decent analysis, I've just spent a lazy half hour browsing through the Apollo galleries looking for suitable images to experiment with. Ie, ones with an astronaut lit in a similar fashion to the reflected astronaut in the image in question. My shortlist includes:
AS11-40-5902
AS11-40-5903
AS12-46-6807
AS12-49-7281
AS12-49-7318
AS16-113-18339
AS16-113-18342
AS17-138-21069
AS17-143-21836

If you wish to look at any of these, you could either do a google image search on each one, or to view the BIG image, paste the string into this:

history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-141-21608HR.jpg

(that's the link to the original image - just replace the bolded bit as necessary, and amend the folder if required - so /a17/ would need to be /a11/ for an AS11 image..))


Here's my favorite two, although they may not be the best match - I just think they are cool!

history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...

Bit of a pity about the lens flare in the second, but never mind...

Be back later...



[edit on 25-4-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 03:32 AM
link   
Going a tiny bit off-topic, sorry.

But while we are debating such minutiae.. here's a quick quiz to lighten the tone... If you don't want to spoil it for others, feel free to u2u the answer, and I'll tell you if you're right.

Here's the question:

Q. How does this image (assuming of course it is not re-touched
) PROVE that the lighting is NOT, I repeat NOT artificial?



Added:
I refer to the image that this thread is about, of course:
history.nasa.gov...


[edit on 25-4-2010 by CHRLZ]



new topics

top topics



 
105
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join