Who took this photo on the moon ?

Oh look, usdscube just joined! Welcome!!!

Originally posted by usdscuba
Many of the moon pictures were created here in Houston Texas...

What a load that was...

Apart from the other items raised, blowing your ridiculous (but quite funny) post out of the water.. I have 4 requests:

1. Where EXACTLY, off Highway 59?

2. Describe the lighting methodology used on the set.

3. Tell us how big the studio was - 100 metres across, 200, 1000? How high was the roof? A rough estimate will be fine.

Yes, that's only 3. The fourth? - Learn to use PARAGRAPHS. (You may need to Google this teknicul turm.)



... Be VEWWY, VEWWY careful - two of those requests are a very cunning TWAP!


[edit on 27-4-2010 by CHRLZ]

Sometimes it's good to remind people what this thread was about... and to ask ... what is the first thought that comes into your mind when viewing this image ... (you have to zoom in a lot into the visor)

If the camera was fixed, and facing forward how could the guy in visor reflection have taken the photo ?

history.nasa.gov...

I've found that most times my gut instinct is more accurate.

reply to post by ppk55


Sometimes it is also good to remember this particular photo has been the subject of much scrutiny for several years now. Not attacking messanger just reminding everyone this is a known anomaly.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4984ed5fec05.jpg[/atsimg]

www.aulis.com...

I agree it is a puzzling photo that has yet to be totally debunked based on visual evidence available. Quite curious indeed.

[edit on 27-4-2010 by kinda kurious]

[edit on 27-4-2010 by kinda kurious]

Originally posted by ppk55
Sometimes it's good to remind people what this thread was about... and to ask ... what is the first thought that comes into your mind when viewing this image ... (you have to zoom in a lot into the visor)

If the camera was fixed, and facing forward how could the guy in visor reflection have taken the photo ?

history.nasa.gov...

I've found that most times my gut instinct is more accurate.

Sigh.

1. That camera was NOT fixed. NOT FIXED. The Hasselblads were on a quick release chest mount, and that mount was quite 'movable' anyway..

2. You are arguing from the non-proven assumption that the astronaut is facing away. As I will show later, that is VERY debatable.

Moon studio pictures reply:
I will try to answer your questions as best as I can remember. Keep in mind this was way back in 1974 about 36 years ago, and I do not think with all the thousands of changes in the Houston area I would even be able to find the location again. I am sure everything that was there during that time period was removed and placed in a secure storage facility.

>
Your opinion is of little value because you are not aware of the facts. I was there, and was able to see, and touch the equipment there. Why would a 58 year old guy make this up? Over the last 36 years I have made many good friends working at NASA, and I can assure you that what the public is aware of has little to do with reality.


>
The location was North of the 610 loop, and from our office on corporate it took about 35 minutes driving time to get there. It was not on Hwy 59, but on a side street about 10 minutes from the freeway. I was new to the Houston area at the time, and I was not the driver. I rode with an Electrical engineer Named Clint. The security people at the moon studio facility made us wait close to an hour before we were allowed to enter the building. We did not work for NASA, we were working for a sub contractor.

>
The lighting system appeared to be the same as any movie set. There were large lights mounded on ceiling tracks, about 8 or 10. These were about 36" OD with black adjustable flaps on the sides. These were attached to the ceiling beam support structure. There were also 6 large portable lights on tripods that could be moved around the set. The complete inside of the building, model area, and the moon set back round was painted with flat black textured paint. It looked like small pieces of yarn sprayed with the paint to create the textured finish. It was very dark inside. There were also about 6 assorted old looking wood desks and chairs with small table lamps near the main door. These were located about 60 ft from the moon set. The building looked like any concrete warehouse structure in the area, nothing special or unique. No windows, and one double steel with no name on the building, only a temp number near the steel gray security door. You had to ring the bell to get inside. The people working inside were not friendly, security wore business suits and were armed with handguns. We did not see the rear of the building. I would assume it had a loading dock like the others in the area.

>
We were not allowed to see the contents of the whole building, or just wander about, so I have no idea was else was there. However, before you entered the moon set we went past an area with scale models of the planets, and models of rockets. These planets were very large and extremely detailed, some over 12 ft. OD. We were restricted just to the office area, models, and moon set. This scale model area was not very large, the area was about 150 ft on each side. Everything was hanging on thin black wires from the ceiling with smaller lighting systems nearby.
The moon set itself was only about 250 ft to 300 ft wide and maybe 100 ft deep. The ceiling was about 40 ft tall. It was very hard to tell the depth and height because everything was black and dark. There was some small lights inside the back wall, I would assume to look like stars? The front area where the lander and buggy was located was lighted well. The moon lander was much small than I expected. The space suits were attached to racks on wheels. This was the 1st time I was exposed to any NASA hardware / equipment, and it was very cool for a small town boy to be there.

Thanks for posting this, it's really interesting.

Yeah, he's too far away, there's no camera on his chest, the angle is different, blah blah blah... however are you 100% sure they didn't take mounted cameras to the moon? I mean do you have proof of this or pictures of some documentation? It would be good to clear that up.

Good post nevertheless.

reply to post by usdscuba


Don't know what you saw, but it CERTAINLY was NOT some sort of facility to "fake" Apollo Lunar EVAs.

The location was North of the 610 loop It was not on Hwy 59, but on a side street about 10 minutes from the freeway.

So, close to Humble? Near IAH (Intercontinental Airport)? A bit farther North-East, perhaps? (Just pinning it down)...

Do you really wish to claim that THAT place was some "top-secret" location to "fake" Apollo EVAs? Do you KNOW where the JSC is actually located?

Do you realize how BIG Texas is...(not to mention, well...why bother...)?

We did not work for NASA, we were working for a sub contractor.

Oh. Credibility (such as it was) slipping away even faster....


But, the clincher (for me) is this:

The lighting system appeared to be the same as any movie set. There were large lights mounded on ceiling tracks, about 8 or 10. These were about 36" OD with black adjustable flaps on the sides. These were attached to the ceiling beam support structure.

Here. you're trying to claim that multiple light sources, mounted in the CEILING (!) somehow, magically, only cast ONE shadow...per object... as objects moved (and were 'filmed') within this "fake moon-set"?


AND, all of this in 1974...well after Apollo had been canceled....OK, alrighty then....

Never occurred to you (or anyone) that IF such a facility was built, it would NOT be "top secret", so close to a major city like Houston...and that its true function was more likely a training center?? And/or a place to simulate conditions for testing of hardware, in developing machines that could one day fly, IF a Moon program could be resurrected?

-----
Or, another possibility comes to mind...

Ever here of a (very, very POOR) film called "Capricorn One"?

Was released in theaters in 1977. Any chance they were using (or thinking of using) that building in Houston?

Look a bit like this?



That's a still from the movie production. THAT is how horrible that stupid movie was, recycling an Apollo LM mock-up, to simulate a Mars mission!! Tragically stupid....

Also not to mention that it would be impossible to film the dust behaving exactly as it would in moons gravity back on earth. This story is hilarious.

Originally posted by usdscuba
The moon set itself was only about 250 ft to 300 ft wide and maybe 100 ft deep. The ceiling was about 40 ft tall.

A set that big would be barely big enough to fake Apollo 11 in. They walked about 200 feet away from the LM. However the astronauts on the later missions walked/drove much further. Apollo 17 had the furthest traverse of 7.4km (measuring directly from the LM to geology station 2 on EVA 2). I don't know of any buildings anywhere near that size.

Plus how would you explain the parallax that's created when combining two or more photos taken in the same direction, but from different area's? A fake backdrop won't give you that effect.

reply to post by weedwhacker



This post seems really close to donny4million when he claimed that the astro-dome was used for the lunar filming

You remember that?


Image that he was banned and that we have the same conversation again!
donny4million
post1
post2
post3
post4

I think we get the point!

Hi donny 4 million!


[edit on 27-4-2010 by theability]

[edit on 27-4-2010 by theability]

Originally posted by usdscuba
Moon studio pictures reply:
I will try to answer your questions as best as I can remember. Keep in mind this was way back in 1974 about 36 years ago, and I do not think with all the thousands of changes in the Houston area I would even be able to find the location again.

Oh, what a totally unexpected shame that is. I wasn't expecting that sort of reply, oh no.

I am sure everything that was there during that time period was removed and placed in a secure storage facility.

Yes, of course, what was I thinking. I mean, just because they left it there for TWO YEARS after the program finished, just for you to see... but I'm sure they got all sensible after that.

>
Your opinion is of little value because you are not aware of the facts.

My opinion has exactly the same value as yours, on this forum. But I tedn to back my information up with verifiable facts. Can anyone spot the difference?

I was there, and was able to see, and touch the equipment there.

Mmmm. Proof positive!

Why would a 58 year old guy make this up?

Why is your age relevant or (believable)?
But to answer the question, perhaps because:
- he likes stirring the pot
- he wants 15 minutes of fame
- he works for a studio/distributor seeing moon hoax books or dvds
- he is a troll
- he genuinely believes this tripe, and is annoyed that it gets shot down so much, and tries feverishly to help 'the cause'..

Nope? None of those? OK, you must be telling the truth, so I can't think of ANY reason.

Over the last 36 years I have made many good friends working at NASA

'Course you have, dearie. But of course you can't name them because the black helicopters will descend.

and I can assure you that what the public is aware of has little to do with reality.

Pity you can't be specific...

>
The location was North of the 610 loop, and from our office on corporate it took about 35 minutes driving time to get there.

I LOVE it. Gotta have respect for Merkans who think people around the globe will easily be able to work that reference out. Thanks!

It was not on Hwy 59, but on a side street about 10 minutes from the freeway.

10 minutes off the freeway isn't exactly 'just off', but I guess that's an other Merkan thing..

I was new to the Houston area at the time, and I was not the driver.

And they blindfolded you so you couldn't see the street names?

I rode with an Electrical engineer Named Clint.

You've certainly made my day. How apt.

>
The lighting system appeared to be the same as any movie set. There were large lights mounded on ceiling tracks, about 8 or 10. These were about 36" OD with black adjustable flaps on the sides.

KABOOM!!! End of credibility.

You were warned about walking into the trap! Thanks for doing so. I'm not going to spend any further time debunking this rank, fetid stupidity.

Just three words are required for you:
PENUMBRA
MULTIPLE SHADOWS.

Just check the image that is being discussed, and ANY of the thousands of other lunar surface shots.



Bye bye.


[edit on 28-4-2010 by CHRLZ]

CHRLZ ... I dont mean to be rude, but could you give it a rest just for bit. Would you mind just taking a short break and letting a few more people contribute without you shutting down the conversation every time.

It would be great to get some outside perspective on things, but the way you carry on, I think you might be scaring away some people from posting.

All due respect for your enthusiasm, but it can be a bit overwhelming.

Thanks.

Not wanting to take my own thread off topic, but it's actually easy to replicate the footage seen from the moon. Just slow it down by 50%.

I Implore everyone to take a video of themselves jumping around and throwing some dirt in the air. If you slow it down it will look exactly like the moon vision. This is the one thing I can say I do know something about professionally.

note: this is the original image in question, how did he take this photo.

i1028.photobucket.com...

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Also not to mention that it would be impossible to film the dust behaving exactly as it would in moons gravity back on earth. This story is hilarious.

[edit on 28-4-2010 by ppk55]

Originally posted by ppk55
CHRLZ ... I dont mean to be rude, but could you give it a rest just for bit. Would you mind just taking a short break and letting a few more people contribute without you shutting down the conversation every time.

It would be great to get some outside perspective on things, but the way you carry on, I think you might be scaring away some people from posting.

All due respect for your enthusiasm, but it can be a bit overwhelming.

Thanks.

Well, I'll concede that you asked very nicely, but my answer is.. No.

How exactly am I shutting down the conversation? Could it be because the persons who are posting incorrect and misleading information are unable to articulate themselves, or defend their position? Or is it because people like you don't like to ever admit they are wrong - I note you haven't said a WORD about your misunderstanding about the chest mounts (amongst others). Why? Is it so terribly embarrassing? Is it better to avoid the subject and hope no-one will notice, rather than acknowledge the error and discuss the implications of it?

Anyway, as you will see by my response to your next post - if you post incorrect information, you are going to be pulled up on it. Check the motto of the site.

If you post truthful, well-researched information, then you will find my posts will become much less of a problem.

reply to post by ppk55


For the sake of clarity. You have linked to your "composite." Your post reads "original image." That might cause confusion for those just tuning in.

In defense of CHRLZ. He has every right to post here as much as anyone. (Heck, I have even been on the receiving side in other threads. Granted he doesn't beat around the bush.) It is my opinion that the TRUTH can withstand great scrutiny. Vigorous debate makes us better, stronger and more thorough.

I'm enjoying his thread nonetheless and don't feel you need to "Mother Hen" it and I disagree that CHRLZ is scaring anyone off. Anyone should feel free to respond.


Just my .02¢



[edit on 28-4-2010 by kinda kurious]

Originally posted by ppk55
Not wanting to take my own thread off topic, but it's actually easy to replicate the footage seen from the moon. Just slow it down by 50%.

How ironic, you don't want ontopic discussion from anyone who disagrees with you, and then *you* take it off topic... So be it.

This was addressed rather well, if a little simplistically, by Mythbusters and was clearly shown to be incorrect - slowed down footage may look superficially similar in some respects, but if you analyse the footage carefully, you will see that it misses the mark in many ways.. (By the way, a 50% slowdown is NOT the correct amount to attempt to compensate for the 1/6 gravity - I'm happy to post links and references if others are interested, but like you said, it's offtopic...)

I would invite anyone who thinks this will work to get a few random samples of original quality apollo video footage, speed it up by 2x, and watch carefully, especially arm and leg movements. It's a FAIL, at any chosen speed. While you are at it, grab some footage of the rover, and try it on that, too - it will give you a laugh, anyway. While watching, also take note of the beautiful arching parabolas of dust coming off the wheels - nobody has explained how that would be possible on Earth, even with today's tech.

I Implore everyone to take a video of themselves jumping around and throwing some dirt in the air. If you slow it down it will look exactly like the moon vision.

So do I! And if it looks exactly like the Apollo footage to you, I suggest you watch some realtime footage off a DVD, rather than tacky little compressed and frame-rate adjusted youtube videos where you can't see any detail anyway.

This is the one thing I can say I do know something about professionally.

I'm afraid I don't believe you, given the gaffes you have made so far.
Perhaps you can point us to some of your work, showing relevance?

Or perhaps you might like to address a simple issue, that of lighting. If this was done in a studio, can you explain the type of lighting used?
A type of lighting that would provide the light and shadow effects shown in ALL the high resolution film scans, videos, etc taken on all the Apollo missions.

The subject image of this thread illustrates some of the facets of the lighting very well. Please address the subjects of penumbral shadowing, and multiple light source effects (yes, ALL of the effects - you should know what I mean).


You play offtopic, so do I....

Back to the OP's photo...

Hasn't anyone noticed that the astronaut is off to one side and the center of the picture is not the astronaut, but rather the gnomon and the rock shadow? The astronaut taking the picture was not facing directly toward the other astronaut, but was most likely facing directly toward the gnomon and rock shadow.

Therefore, why should we expect the reflection of the astronaut/photographer to be facing directly toward the astronaut in the picture?



[edit on 4/28/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

hahahaha fake! just like the landing
.
.

Originally posted by ppk55
CHRLZ ... I dont mean to be rude, but could you give it a rest just for bit. Would you mind just taking a short break and letting a few more people contribute without you shutting down the conversation every time.

It would be great to get some outside perspective on things, but the way you carry on, I think you might be scaring away some people from posting.

All due respect for your enthusiasm, but it can be a bit overwhelming.

Thanks.

WHY are his posts a problem could it be the logic things like NO multiple shadows or the fact he could work out (like most others) what way the astronauts shadow would be in the reflection have you nothing to say on that yet either

Moon Studio Pictures: