Who took this photo on the moon ?

page: 14
105
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ
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?


It matters a lot, because the guy who supposedly took this photo should have a large sample bag on screen left (his right) So using the wrong astronaut (Cernan) means the bag is on the opposite side.


Originally posted by CHRLZ
So far you have only managed to post one with the light falling the wrong way because you haven't reversed it


Um, I even posted a composite with the wrong astronaut supplied by Kinda Kurious.
i1028.photobucket.com...


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


Kinda Kurious accused me of this first. It he/she however that took cherry picking to a new level by using the wrong astronaut, in the wrong place and at the wrong time. I got those 3 right.


Originally posted by CHRLZ
If there is some difference between the astronauts that is significant, you need to specify precisely what that is.
[edit on 25-4-2010 by CHRLZ]


I did. Go back and actually read my post. (hint, it's the sample bag)

Here's the picture in question for people just joining us.

(Schmitt on the right is supposed to have taken this photo, even though his backpack, camera and sample bag are missing)

i1028.photobucket.com...


[edit on 25-4-2010 by ppk55]




posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55

Here's the picture in question for people just joining us.

(Schmitt on the right is supposed to have taken this photo, even though his backpack, camera and sample bag are missing)

i1028.photobucket.com...


[edit on 25-4-2010 by ppk55]


What is baffling in the photo is Schmitt's shadow: the shadow is at odds with the astronaut. The shadow shows the backpack!



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55

Originally posted by CHRLZ
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?


It matters a lot, because the guy who supposedly took this photo should have a large sample bag on screen left (his right) So using the wrong astronaut (Cernan) means the bag is on the opposite side.


Are you 100% certain that the bag was on that side and visible at the precise moment the image was taken? How did you ascertain that? Is it possible it was lost in the background, or unresolved given that we are talking about only a few pixels?

Don't worry, I'll deal with all this later when I get time to look into it properly, but I'm concerned that you seem to be leaving an awful lot of your assumptions unstated and you are simply deleting/ignoring anything you don't like, hoping that you will escape answering the important questions...



Originally posted by CHRLZ
So far you have only managed to post one with the light falling the wrong way because you haven't reversed it

Um, I even posted a composite with the wrong astronaut supplied by Kinda Kurious.

So WHERE is the image of yours showing the astronaut lit correctly, ie with the Sun coming from the correct direction? You criticise ME for not reading what you say..?

Again, I note that you have simply cropped out the part about not balancing the gamma/black/white points.
Do you simply delete anything you cannot answer??



i1028.photobucket.com...

Yes, THAT would be the one where the sun falls on the wrong side of your addition, and the gamma hasn't been adjusted.


Kinda Kurious accused me of this first. It he/she however that took cherry picking to a new level by using the wrong astronaut, in the wrong place and at the wrong time. I got those 3 right.


At the time, you hadn't raised the issue of the sample bag, and you STILL haven't clearly delineated where you think it is/should be in the reflection. Don't blame us because you are new to digital compositing.




Originally posted by CHRLZ
If there is some difference between the astronauts that is significant, you need to specify precisely what that is.
[edit on 25-4-2010 by CHRLZ]

I did. Go back and actually read my post. (hint, it's the sample bag)

So be specific, show us where you think it *should be* in the reflection.


Here's the picture in question for people just joining us.

(Schmitt on the right is supposed to have taken this photo, even though his backpack, camera and sample bag are missing)

i1028.photobucket.com...

Again, that shows the astronaut lit on the WRONG SIDE, and is not gamma adjusted. This getting quite tedious. Why not just sit back and wait until I provide a DECENT analysis.

Then, of course, you can tear my analysis to shreds with your obvious knowledge of the topic.
Just like you have addressed 'boozyscientist's video.

Oh wait... no, you ignored that one too. I'm seeing a trend.....


Just for the record, do you believe the Apollo missions were hoaxed?

If so, do you claim that these images were taken in a 'studio' of some kind?

And if so, can you not answer the quiz question I posted?



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
What is baffling in the photo is Schmitt's shadow: the shadow is at odds with the astronaut. The shadow shows the backpack!


Yes, indeed! But what if the astronaut is actually close to facing straight on (despite what it 'looks' like) and the PLSS is mostly behind his helmet, as demonstrated here:



I'll happily admit that the illusion he is facing away is quite a strong one, especially when highly magnified and interpolated versions are used to muddy the waters.

But once you examine the actual recorded detail and look at the alternatives dispassionately, there is no real mystery.

As promised, I will be back later to expound on this.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


For the record, I tried to make it abundantly clear (apparently, not clear enough) that the reason I chose the image I did (cherry picked) was merely because of criteria:

- It was from a QT clip (not Real Media) so I could "jog" to pick a key frame.

- It didn't matter which Astronaut or leg of the EVA as the purpose was to attempt to illustrate that the PLSS could be visually obscured by random means. (The fact that it was Cernan actually makes a stronger case though as his PLSS was not in question.)

- Granted it was more of a frontal view but in your visor composite a little "warp" should be added to mimic visor curvature.

- I never meant "cherry-pick" as a derogatory term. I used it to reveal my intent, not attack yours.

Granted the shadow mismatch is puzzling and the visor image interesting, but we are limited in our analysis to existing data. I commend your investigative skills and attempt to back your claim. I am sure you have invested hours of your time, as have I. I am typically not a SKEPTIC.



[edit on 25-4-2010 by kinda kurious]



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   
That's a most interesting photo, thanks for posting it! The answer to how it was done is so simple that everyone is missing it. The astronaut who took the picture simply took off his helmet, set it on a rock and held his breath for about 20 minutes. I'm afraid those areas that appear to have been burnt out, are merely patches of swamp gas. Hey Phage, any ideas?



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   
why would he need to be facing the helmet straight on? Bearing in mind that the shot of the other astronaut is not the centre of the photo and the camera is pointed to his right, then he obviously would not be facing dead centre in the reflection... and the curvature of the helmet he is reflected in would only further exaggerate the angle.

Also I think the reason the reflected astronaut looks 'so far away' is simply down to the amount of extra surface area reflected from the bottom of the curved surface... which would increased the amount of perceived moon surface making it look further away.

Doesn't seem particularly unusual to me.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 10:18 PM
link   
The reflection in the visor and especially the shadow look like a photoshop job. That could also explain some of the other artifacts.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 12:59 AM
link   
The guy with his hands in his pockets doesn't even look as though he's
wearing a space suit. He looks as if he's wearing a jacket with 'military'
pants, the ones that are good for blending in with the bush. Where is his
helmet?

[edit on 26-4-2010 by Starpass]



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 01:58 AM
link   
I think what is more interesting is the boulder he is standing in front of. How is it the boulder is there. On earth a boulder lying on its own like that would probably indicate that it was carried there by a glacier broken off from a mountain as the glacier moved then deposited it when the glacier finally melted. IT can't be a meteor as they are not in a cretor judging by the reflection in the astronauts visor.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 02:41 AM
link   
OK, my analysis begins.


I'm going to go through this very slowly, step by step, probably dragging it on (interminably) over several days. Why?

Simply to give the opportunity for anyone to add, debate or object to each step of the process. And I won't proceed until there is general agreement - although if anyone argues points without demonstrating a correct alternative approach, or who uses non-repeatable methods or cannot cite credible references.. I'm afraid I won't be taking that too seriously.


First of all, let's clarify the 'Conundrum'.


In the NASA Apollo image AS17-141-21608, taken during the Apollo 17 mission on a Hasselblad 70mm still film camera fitted with Zeiss Distagon 60mm lens and loaded with Kodak 3401 Plus-XX black and white film, there is (according to Nasa) a reflection in astronaut Eugene A. Cernan's visor showing Harrison "Jack" Schmitt, who took the photo. The reflection *appears* to show Schmitt angled away somewhat from the scene, and does not clearly show his PLSS (backpack) - although the shadow does appear to show a backpack.

The full image is linked here as a high resolution film scan:

history.nasa.gov...

The area in question is near the top left. That is the highest resolution scan found to date.

Here is the area in question, at ACTUAL pixel size:


Here it is again, enlarged using no interpolation, showing the actual scanned pixels clearly:


NOTES
=====

1. Any other enlargements shown on this thread that do NOT have this pixelated quality, have been generated by software that uses interpolation routines. Interpolation, by definition, means that the program has 'guessed' the added pixels, and smoothed out the image. Such added detail is NOT valid data, and cannot be used for valid image analysis or forensics.


The ONLY way to extract more detail from the original film image would be to rescan it at higher resolution. However, the image is already showing film grain along with blurring, either from a focus error, camera movement, or lens aberrations. So it is most unlikely that rescanning at a higher resolution would add any useful information.

2. The reflected astronaut figure is quite unclear and appears to be approximately 55-59 pixels high (more about this later) and 17-22 pixels wide. It is not possible to clearly resolve or identify details on the astronaut that would be below aproximately 3-4" (75-100mm) actual size.

3. It is evident that parts of the astronaut are at or below the same brightness level as the background lunar regolith.
The regolith has greyscale values of approximately 110-120, but reaches >150 in some places.
The astronaut's greyscale values range from ~70 (shadowed areas of legs/boot) up to ~180 (sunlit helmet).



Thus endeth part 1. To be continued...

Informed and educated comments, and constructive criticism most welcome. I'm most happy to be corrected by those better informed than me.


[edit on 26-4-2010 by CHRLZ]


jra

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by tarifa37
I think what is more interesting is the boulder he is standing in front of. How is it the boulder is there... *snip* ...IT can't be a meteor as they are not in a cretor judging by the reflection in the astronauts visor.


It rolled down the side of the mountain.

Here's an image I made for another thread. Station 6

Here's a photo taken while on the LRV. If you zoom into the mountain in the background, just above the TV camera. You can see two boulder trails. The one on the right is "Tracy's rock" or Geology station 6. AS17-136-20796

Here's an image from the LRO of the Apollo 17 landing site. You can see the boulder trails in it as well. M109032389LE

It was most likely a meteor that impacted elsewhere and broke into smaller pieces and bounced and rolled down the mountain side.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 04:19 AM
link   
reply to post by jra
 


Thanks for your time and detailed reply. That does explain it for me. It must have been a huge aerolite meteor to have fragmented into boulders that size.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinda kurious
reply to post by JohnySeagull
 


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

Just kurious.


thought the reflection looked really dodgey, was suspicious of it.

after looking at what ppk55 posted i could see how the reflection could be genuine. I merely believe now that there is no issue with the reflection.


(I also originally didn't believe in the moon landings many years ago. Then after reading many items over years I really did change my mind and was quite confident that they were genuine. However , once again over the last few years I have had many new doubts. I have a decent backyard telescope and a few months ago I observed a very strange 'flaw' on the moon. I tried to convince myself for hours that it was nothing and explained it away. But I kept going back and checking and it wasn't right. You would have to see it to believe me. I ended up that night convinced the moon is fake. Until I set foot on it myself I probably wont change my mind.)



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Many of the moon pictures were created here in Houston Texas just off of Hwy 59 in a large warehouse complex with no names on the buildings. The cover story was this is where the "training movies for the missions" were produced. I was working in the studio back in 1974 and there was a very large and realistic moon scape, life size vehicle, a lunar lander, real space suits, moon buggy at the studio. This was an expensive movie set with Hollywood lighting and fixtures run by NASA and a covert agency with very tight security.
These were not foam props at the studio, the moon buggy was very real, made of metal, and according to my research there was not a back-up buggy ever produced. Furthermore, according to one of the engineers who work on the Apollo program, there was no place to even transport a moon buggy on the primary space vehicle anyway. You can confirm this from the Apollo vehicle blue prints. You will also note that the Hubble and other large telescopes are still not allowed to view the moon landing site or provide pictures to the public.
Did we go to the moon, I don't know, but I am sure many of the pictures the public viewed were produced right here in Houston. The FBI was also very involved with collecting all the copies of "We never went to the moon" books just before they were distributed to the public. I was at a Barns & Noble store when this was going on. Even the local channel 2 news coverage and interviews concerning this book was taken from the local TV studio and the people who worked there we not allowed to even talk about the book, or author, even after the interview on "good morning Houston" with Jan Glen was aired to the public. The actual tape of that show with the interview went missing the same day the interview was aired on TV. There has always been some funny business going on with the moon program.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55

Originally posted by CHRLZ
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?


It matters a lot, because the guy who supposedly took this photo should have a large sample bag on screen left (his right) So using the wrong astronaut (Cernan) means the bag is on the opposite side.

[edit on 25-4-2010 by ppk55]



In BOLD ppk55 ARE YOU SURE ABOUT THAT STATEMENT as you couldn't figure out what side the shadow should be on earlier in this thread a point you refused to answer earlier so IF A SIMPLE REFLECTION CAN MIX YOU UP can anyone trust your judgement.


[edit on 26-4-2010 by wmd_2008]



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by usdscuba
 


This is huge. Please post a scan of your security badge (name blacked out, of course) to confirm.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by usdscuba
Furthermore, according to one of the engineers who work on the Apollo program, there was no place to even transport a moon buggy on the primary space vehicle anyway. You can confirm this from the Apollo vehicle blue prints.



Hoax proponents say that blueprints for the Apollo Lunar Module, rover, and associated equipment are missing. There are some diagrams of the Lunar Module and Moon buggy on the NASA web site as well as on the pro hoax web site Xenophilia.com. Grumman appears to have destroyed most of the documentation. Despite the questions concerning the existence or location of the LEM blueprints, an unused LEM is on exhibit at the Cradle of Aviation Museum. The Lunar Module designated LM-13 would have landed on the Moon during the Apollo 18 mission, but was instead put into storage when the mission was canceled: it has since been restored and put on display. Other unused Lunar Modules are on display: LM-2 at the National Air and Space Museum, LM-9 at Kennedy Space Center, and LM-16 at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago. Copies of the blueprints for the Saturn V exist on microfilm.
Four mission-worthy Lunar Rovers were built, but three were carried to the Moon on Apollo 15, 16, and 17, and left there. After Apollo 18 was canceled (see Canceled Apollo missions), the other lunar rover was used for spare parts for the lunar rovers on the upcoming Apollo 15 through 17 missions. The only lunar rovers on display are test vehicles, trainers, and models. The “Moon buggies” were built by Boeing (the New Encyclopædia Britannica Micropedia, 2005, vol 2, p 319). The 221-page operation manual for the Lunar Rover contains some detailed drawings, although not the design blueprints.


www.conspiracyencyclopedia.com...



You will also note that the Hubble and other large telescopes are still not allowed to view the moon landing site or provide pictures to the public.


LRO Images of Apollo Landing Site


Looks like you've been here:
www.xenophilia.com...

Most of your claims explained here: en.wikipedia.org...

I'm sure we are all curious to see any evidence of your claims.



[edit on 26-4-2010 by kinda kurious]


jra

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by usdscuba
I was working in the studio back in 1974 and there was a very large and realistic moon scape, life size vehicle, a lunar lander, real space suits, moon buggy at the studio.


One minor problem. The Apollo program ended in 1972...


...and according to my research there was not a back-up buggy ever produced.


There were four flight ready rovers produced as well as several others meant only for training and testing.


Furthermore, according to one of the engineers who work on the Apollo program, there was no place to even transport a moon buggy on the primary space vehicle anyway. You can confirm this from the Apollo vehicle blue prints.


Wow... your story is getting worse. Some very basic research would have shown you that there was indeed a place too transport the Lunar rover on the LM. The LRV folds up, so that it can be stored in a small space.

Watch this and learn something Moon Machines: Lunar Rover (1of5)


You will also note that the Hubble and other large telescopes are still not allowed to view the moon landing site or provide pictures to the public.


You need a telescope with a mirror that's at least 200m in diameter to see the landing sites from Earth/Earth orbit. There is no telescope in existence that comes close. It's physically impossible for any current telescope to view the landing sites from Earth/Earth orbit.

You're going to have to try a little harder if you hope to convince anyone with that story.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by usdscuba
 


It's been stated on here a few times re the Hubble taking pictures of the Moon 2 main problems.

1) The smallest object the Hubble could resolve on the moon is around 300ft across.

2) If the Hubble or any telescope EVER showed the landing sites in detail what would happen all the hoax believers would say the images were faked


So do you see the problems.

Look at this image first posted by jra this is one of the best images ever re the hoax.

One side of the image is from the DAC camera taken as the APOLLO 17
astronauts left the moon the other side is from the LRO mission taken recently compare and see what you think.

files.abovetopsecret.com...

So one side taken almost 40 yrs ago all the items on the DAC image cannot be seen from earth the LRO image matches.

So what do you say about that.





new topics
top topics
 
105
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join