Who took this photo on the moon ?

reply to post by wmd_2008

Yes.

Jack's reflection is distorted in Gene's helmet. By looking at his shadow it can be seen that Jack is aiming his camera toward Gene.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/da121d1ecc31.png[/atsimg]

The camera can be removed from the chest mount.



[edit on 4/22/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


Yes Phage

Unlike some on here we LOOK for clues others are so determined to try and PROVE NASA wrong THEY DONT LOOK.
THEY ALWAYS SEE WHAT THEY WANT and NOT WHAT IS THERE.

Originally posted by ppk55
Ok mr photography expert, you're telling me that if that little guy in the frame was you .. you could take this quality photo in that position without moving the camera left or right 1 degree.

Don't you think you'd have to turn around just a little bit. Remember, the camera is fixed to your chest, manual controls, no viewfinder.

Here's the original high res photo. Don't forget to zoom right into the visor
history.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Hardluck guys Photography is a blackart to some on here.

[edit on 22-4-2010 by ppk55]

The helmet is curved go look in a spoon with the back towards you face very similar effect.
People claimed no back pack no camera DID it not occur to you guys to
LOOK at his shadow THATS the problem they want to try and prove we didn't go to the Moon they try to hard so all judgment goes right out the window!

[edit on 22-4-2010 by wmd_2008]

My profession is in cinematography, and I can tell you, to pull of this shot is bull no matter which way you try to spin it.

reply to post by Phage

No amount of curved mirror will reveal more of you than a normal mirror.
It will change the look of it, but it won't magically reveal new information than a flat mirror could.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
The helmet is curved go look in a spoon with the back towards you face very similar effect

[edit on 22-4-2010 by ppk55]

The biggest problem is the lack of detail of Jack in the helmet. It's hard to tell if he is facing Gene or not.

The photographer must be facing directly at the subject in the reflection, regardless of the angle.

For example, look at this photo

The photographer is at a similar angle to the convex mirror. However, she is still pointing directly at the reflection.

The only proof we have is that the shadow seems to determine the direction that Jack is facing, and that is directly at Gene. This is what Phage just pointed out.

My question is, does the shadow actually determine the direction the subject is facing?

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by ppk55
No amount of curved mirror will reveal more of you than a normal mirror.
It will change the look of it, but it won't magically reveal new information than a flat mirror couldn't.

What? A convex lens (fisheye) will absolutely reveal more than a normal mirror. A large convex can reveal almost up to 180 degrees, while a normal mirror is much more limited.

Originally posted by samureyed
The biggest problem is the lack of detail of Jack in the helmet. It's hard to tell if he is facing Gene or not.

The photographer must be facing directly at the subject in the reflection, regardless of the angle.

For example, look at this photo

The photographer is at a similar angle to the convex mirror. However, she is still pointing directly at the reflection.

The only proof we have is that the shadow seems to determine the direction that Jack is facing, and that is directly at Gene. This is what Phage just pointed out.

My question is, does the shadow actually determine the direction the subject is facing?

It may be similar angle but its the position and curvature of the mirror that determines how it looks you would need to have something with the same curvature or even better one of the helmets.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
It may be similar angle but its the position and curvature of the mirror that determines how it looks you would need to have something with the same curvature or even better one of the helmets.

While this is true, it doesnt change that fact that if the camera is in the reflection, the lens will be facing directly back at itself, regardless of angle or curvature.

Edit: unless of course your taking a picture with two reflections

[edit on 22-4-2010 by samureyed]

The visor is angled like a ball or sphere.

Therefore objects directly 90degrees to the side may become visible due to the bending of the visor.

Seems simple enough.

If anyone finds out I am wrong, u2u me so I will see what is discovered. Thanks.

I'm not talking about the range of the lens, of bloody course a wide angle can reveal more of the scene, but it can't suddenly reveal the back of your shoulder or foot that a normal lens couldn't. That is what is being proposed here. A magical lens that you can aim at someone and it can reveal their backside. yeah.

Originally posted by samureyed
What? A convex lens (fisheye) will absolutely reveal more than a normal mirror. A large convex can reveal almost up to 180 degrees, while a normal mirror is much more limited.

[edit on 22-4-2010 by ppk55]

ummm...did anyone stop and think that maybe Jack wasn't photographing Gene? Seems to me the center of the picture is at the shadow on the rock. This might not even be the whole picture, NASA did crop some of the moon shots. But, if Gene were the object of the picture, then Gene would be center frame, not off center. So, it seems reasonable to believe that Jack would NOT have been facing directly towards Gene's visor because they weren't on the moon to take "wish you were here" happy snaps but to document the procedures or "goings on" of the mission. If I send you to explore Angkor Wat I want pictures of the ruins and maybe of the excavation, not pictures of you smiling and wearing a Disney T-shirt.

So, if Jack was off center of Gene, where would he be facing? Oh yeah, the right, or Gene's left. Thank you for your time!

--Apex

[edit on 22-4-2010 by Apex Predator]

Hey, my first double post! Sweet! Sorry for the jump!

--Apex

[edit on 22-4-2010 by Apex Predator]

1) I swear it looks like a picture of Big Bird

2) Or a guy in a Tyvek suit... doesn't look like the space suits we're used to somehow.

3) It reminds me of the joke...

Here's a picture of me and my horse. Joe took that.
Here's a picture of Joe and my horse.
Here's a picture of Joe and me. My horse took that.

good find and good fun... whatever it ends up revealing.

The "guy" in the mirror isn't an official Nasa Astronaut. Take a look to his spacesuit. Absolutely different from the original Nasa spacesuit. Where is his back pack? Magic!

Well, what do you know - yet ANOTHER bogus post of hyped up nonsense on this ATS site - I think it's about time I ditched this place...

The image in the visor to me looks as thought he is facing the person he is photographing. Also his hands are holding the camera taking the shot.

I can see this by eliminating the bright spots at his right foot, our left and removing some outline that is not part of the image.

I've dealt with lighting and know how it may make illusions of something thats not there. To me.. his stance corresponds to his shadow.

I do not see anything out of the ordinary.. and someone commenting about distance from the subject while taking a photo.. I'm sure they had zoom..

Sorry .. no star and flag for assuming something that is not there for me.

Cheers.

Have you thought about the remote and distant possibility of a tripod mounted camera remotely operated? Looks to me like the camera is mounted on the lander...

Originally posted by Antor
The "guy" in the mirror isn't an official Nasa Astronaut. Take a look to his spacesuit. Absolutely different from the original Nasa spacesuit. Where is his back pack? Magic!

Look at his shadow.. you can see the backpack. You don't see the backpack on him because he is facing you in the reflection. The reflection is giving a fake image of a side view when in fact its the front view of the photographer..

But I guess some only see what their eyes wish them to see instead of thinking what they are seeing.

Light and angles can play games on an image with its shadows. If you knew the angles involved and where the light source is, you would clearly see what his, the reflections, stance really is.

Cheers.

1 - on each Apollo lunar mission, there was the Mission Commander, the LEM Pilot, and the CSM Pilot. (Notice no co-pilots. No astronaut wants to be called a co-pilot). The CSM pilot ALWAYS stayed with the Command Service Module, and thus, had the poorest view of anyone on the astronauts who were on the moon.

2 - The Lunar Excursion Module was designed to house only two crewmembers, even though three scrunched in there during Apollo 13. There was a post earlier on the temperature inside the LM during the return to Earth on Apollo 13. Fred Haise told me that since heat does not rise in microgravity, if you could stay perfectly still, the heat created by the body would form a little heat barrier around him, making it seem warmer than the measured temperatures. Once he developed a fever because of his UTI, he radiated even more heat around his body, and this effect was enhanced. However, even a small movement would dissapate this "thermal cushion."

3 - While there were two cameras mounted onto the anterior upper torso segments of the Excusion Suits, they had other cameras that could be tripod mounted. The lunar rover, as mentioned before, had a remote-controlled camera that could be controlled independently of either astronaut.

That still does not conclusively identify the mechanics of this photos, but those are some of the options.