Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Who took this photo on the moon ?

page: 19
105
<< 16  17  18    20  21 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Saint Exupery
 

not talking about shadows; needs different thread for that, and as far as "this post" as you kindly put up; they too need a different thread: notice how the dirt falls back down, and there are in what grav?


[edit on 18-8-2010 by bekod]




posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 01:29 AM
link   
I managed to get a really high res file of this image.
It's a 14mb .tiff

This link still appears to be working.

rapidshare.com...

The only trouble is, it doesn't reveal much more detail than the original... maybe just a bit.

I think this is a great case for re-scanning the image with the latest tech.
Is that going to happen ? doubt it. Wonder why?



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by bekod
 


One of my four links was about the shadow*, but the other three directly addressed the question of why we have trouble seeing the PLSS from the front. Why are you trying to change the subject?
.
.
.
.
.
*Since the shadow shows the PLSS, why is anyone still arguing this point? Are they actually suggesting that the Evil NASA Photo-Retoucher (TM) - using Windows 72, natch - carefully added the shadow of the PLSS, but not the backpack itself?



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55...it doesn't reveal much more detail than the original... maybe just a bit.

I think this is a great case for re-scanning the image with the latest tech.
Is that going to happen ? doubt it. Wonder why?


We're already up against the grain of the film - the resolution limit of the source material. Any higher-res scan is just going to show bigger grain blobs, not more detail. The real world isn't like CSI, where they magnify a security camera video frame to read a car's licence plate reflected in someone's sunglasses.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Saint Exupery
 


70mm is huge. Trust me, you can zoom in a lot more with detail that what we've seen so far.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 01:52 AM
link   
Is it just me or can anyone else see the outline of a mans face where the astronaut is standing? (The astronaut's head is at the top of the outlined mans head, and the astronauts feet are about on the middle/top of his nose.)



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
70mm is huge. Trust me, you can zoom in a lot more with detail that what we've seen so far.

WRONG. 100% wrong. I'm very surprised that ppk can't, apparently, see the grain effects. Once you are seeing grain, you know there is nothing significant left to give. In cameras such as these, the film grain is the main limiting factor for resolution, followed by the overall optical quality (ie lens, reseau, scanner optics..)

If anyone (else) is genuinely interested, I'm happy to get the specifications for that film, and go through the maths. But just spend a few minutes at some film scanning forums, where you will discover the law of diminishing returns as it applies to film scan resolution.

Note that the film used for Apollo (S0-368 Ektachrome MS, a derivative of Ektachrome 160) was NOT a particularly fine grained film like Kodachrome 25/64 (there are good reasons for that). It is a coarse grained film and that's why the images are 'gritty' - perhaps if ppk looked a little more carefully at the images, he might spot that fact...



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Saint Exupery
 


There is no reason why we could not or should not be able to see thePLSS
from front on but that is not relevant cause he is side on, not directly from
the front. The PLSS should be easily visible right behind his head but theres nothing there! As far as the shadow goes as previously posted, it
is his left arm by his side that looks like an object on his back as i initially
thought myself. Obviously though it is impossible to give or see a shadow
being cast in a differing direction to the person casting it. If what you are
implying is a shadow of the PLSS that would put the shadow at a 90 degree
angle to the astronaught if that is what he is.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 06:51 AM
link   
its the moon people showing their Nasa friends their moon cribs, they dont have a door like us, just a hole.

Case closed.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by lestweforget
 

How do you know that the PLSS is not there. All you can see in the enlarged cropped picture are blobs of gray. How can you tell which particular blob of gray represents the light reflected from the lunar soil and which particular blob of gray represents light reflected from the PLSS? You can't. This photograph contains the maximum amount of information possible. No more can be gained by further enlargement or higher resolution scanning. We're looking at molecules of film emulsion from here on in.

All photography is based on an illusion. The human brain is wired to perceive certain shapes and interpret them as three dimensional objects based on our experience in the world. What you are looking at is not a man standing on the Moon, it is the residue of a chemical reaction caused by the light that bounced off a man on the Moon three decades ago. The more you examine the physical substrate of that illusion, the harder it is for your brain to interpret correctly. If you look at a photograph printed in a newspaper through a magnifying glass, you see it is composed of little dots and the illusion breaks down.

So what is going on here? When you look at this picture, you are looking at little blobs of gray. Based on your own knowledge and experience, your brain interprets these blobs like a Rorschach test. What do you see?

1. Alien monster
2. Dude in surfer shorts
3. Astronaut



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 09:01 AM
link   
I can't believe this hasn't been discussed before...I could have sworn a came across this photo a fair while ago...amazes me this is the first thread on it...this isn't something new is it?

reply to post by ppk55
 


Thanks for that high rez version, I'll mess about with it a bit and see what I can get.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHA0S
...amazes me this is the first thread on it...

It doesn't amaze me, because I think it is obvious that the astronaut in the visor IS the one taking the picture.

It looks as if he is not facing the astronaut by the rock for 2 reasons:
(1) The photographer astronaut really wasn't facing the other astronaut -- he was facing the rock -- the rock is centered in the frame.
(2) The visor is convex, therefore it distorts the image, further distorting the direction the photographer astronaut seems to be facing.

In fact, the astronaut photographer is exactly where I expect he would be, considering the convex nature of the visor.

The image of the astronaut in the visor is so distorted and grainy that I'm not surprised the PLSS is obscured by the blobbiness of the original image.


I'm not amazed that this may be the first time this is being discussed, I'm more amazed that we are still discussing it.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Yep, I think you are correct. I just did a quick test with a mirror and a piece of paper made to represent a person and their shadow...sit it in front of the mirror so that the shadow is facing the same direction as seen in the photo, and in the reflection of the mirror, the shadow will be on just about the same angle as what you see in the visor reflection.

[edit on 18/8/10 by CHA0S]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by EartOccupant

I can't see a backpack either.

I do know who took the photograph..



Nice! Let's call him the illegal apollo alien.

Moon hoaxers suggest that he is breathing through the shadow (just like reptiles do) where they see the backpack and call it PLSS to demonstrate their science affiliation.


www.lpi.usra.edu...
Image Collection: 70mm Hasselblad
Mission: 17
Magazine: 141
Magazine Letter: L
Lens Focal Length: 60 mm
Sun Elevation: 36°
Mission Activity: EVA 3
Description: STA 6; SPL 6215; SPL 6235-39; SPL 6305-07; COMMANDER
Film Type: 3401
Film Width: 70 mm
Film Color: black & white

Notice the sun elevation comparative with the shadow length.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by bokonon2010
 



Notice the sun elevation comparative with the shadow length.

You forgot to mention the slope of the terrain. Does that astronaut look vertical to you?



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by bokonon2010
 


Notice the sun elevation comparative with the shadow length.

You forgot to mention the slope of the terrain. Does that astronaut look vertical to you?

Since you probably believe that the reflection in the visor is an astronot,
it is up to you to provide compelling reasons beyond any doubts
why the shadow is this form while the reflection does not have the backpack.
Do you agree with 3D model analysis of EartOccupant? If you do not, then provide us with your model and analysis.
To question the questions of others is not sufficient proof of the apollo 'moon landings'.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by bokonon2010
 


Funny... it seems to me that it's up to you to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's not real. Also, EarthResident's reconstruction makes it perfectly clear that the angle of the photograph would cause the reflection of the photographer to be rotated in precisely the manner the close up shows. (The distances and distortions on the curved surface of the helmet are obviously approximations.) Your bogus head on photograph does not reproduce the geometry at all. Are you willing to admit that it is irrelevant? Or are you going to allow people to be deceived? Or was that the whole point?
Edit to fix formatting, and to add: Asking questions is not proof of anything. You need to provide evidence of something, otherwise, why bother?

[edit on 19-8-2010 by DJW001]

[edit on 19-8-2010 by DJW001]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


If the mock beard falls down from the poor actor playing Santa Claus,
should anyone prove to kids that the Santa is not real?


[edit on 20.8.2010 by bokonon2010]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by bokonon2010
 


So you aren't going to admit that EarthResident's photo proves your photo was a lie?



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by bokonon2010
reply to post by DJW001
 


If the mock beard falls down from the poor actor playing Santa Claus,
should anyone prove to kids that the Santa is not real?
[edit on 20.8.2010 by bokonon2010]


Please show me the revelation regarding this picture that is analogous to actor Santa losing his beard?

I suppose what I'm asking is at what point in the analysis of this image are you saying "Santa's beard fall off"? Please show me the obvious proof of fakery that is so overwhelming that you say should put the burden of proof upon the believers in the moon landing?

[edit on 8/20/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]





new topics

top topics



 
105
<< 16  17  18    20  21 >>

log in

join