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: 7
105
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   
gosh, i kinda think this thread is just ridiculous. though the banter about the technicalities of a photograph that is clearly legit is not that interesting, the message this thread sends out is.

here's an example where people simply refuse to see what's in front of their face, to read the explanation that has been written specifically for them in order to understand and to let go of notions they may have had that have been clearly explained as simply wrong.

it's more important to believe in a lie than it is the truth when the lie is yours. it's more important to conjure and feed this idea that space missions were staged or whatever than it is to admit this photo is totally legit.

and we think we're going to find out secret information regarding aliens, conspiracies, hollow earth, witches and rampant nanobots from these people? ... wait ...

there is nothing interesting about this photo. if you work at it, you can come up with something to chatter about with regard to reflections and distortion as they relate to light and photography.

glad the op posted the photo, don't get me wrong. but as i think they believe now, too, there's no intrigue here at all.

but even though my expectations of my fellow ATSer was already pretty low, it's gotta go down quite a bit more, sheesh.




posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kellter
Does anyone have one of these in their yard? Would be nice to get some comparison photos.


W T F?

no offence but W T F?

I'm getting confused again. That must have been magic mushrooms on my pizza.





posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Nobody mentioned that this could just be the astronaut taking a self portrait holding the camera down low and pointing it upwards towards himself.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   
I don't know about all the shadows and angles and all.....but the person in the reflection seems to be more intrested in what is on the rock stright in front of him. A carving of a face. Go to the first photo in this thread, look stright from his helmet and up a little to the large rock in front of him.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by SPYvsSPY
 


Are you familiar with the term pareidolia?

Seeing a "face" in a rock, especially in such an unlikely (nay, impossible) place as on the Moon...that is 'pareidolia' in action.

Same as seeing "jesus" on a slice of burned toast....or the "Pope inna da Pizza", as 'Father Guido Sarducci' used to say, on Saturday Night Live (showing my age...)





posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Never mind.

Mods please delete



[edit on 4/22/2010 by Kellter]



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Hadrian,

Your's is the most sensible response I have read, and it does sum up the problems with so many "agendas."

If anyone with specific knowledge had anything to tell anyone on this site, how would you do it? If you cannot have people make sense of established scientific principles, documented, real-world information on how and why the military and NASA does what they do, why on Earth would any of the true information on conspiracies, cover-ups, and anomalies that defy known logic be discussed. That would be utter foolishness in this type of environment.

A small child may want to read, but they first need to learn the alphabet. If all they do is argue whether a B is a C, then what chance do they have to read about "the rest of the story" for the Iran-Contra Affair, or anything else?

"Cast not your pearls before swine!"



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 
Maybe just what he thought.......what an unlikly thing to see here on the moon by the cave we are exploring so throughly. Maybe not, but i'm staring at it conemplating.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 05:49 PM
link   
I honestly don't know whether this thread makes me want to laugh or cry. What part of reflection do people not understand? Why have some people not bothered to click on the link to the entire, uncropped photo to understand what is going on? Shadows are dependent on the direction of the light source, not what direction you're facing. The astronaut is not in the center of the photo, he is to the left. The reflection of the astronaut taking the photo is at the limit of the resolution of the film. You can't make out the details of things like his camera because they simply aren't there. Look at the entire photograph to make sense of what is going on, please.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by azzllin
 


If it was the rover camera, it would show up in the reflection on the visor.

In any case, the anomalous figure is NOT wearing an Apollo era spacesuit, there is NO backpack, even accounting for spherical warping of the reflection, the whole suit isn't an Apollo suit.

So NASA, who or what is that figure reflected in the visor?

Also, to the left and slightly back from the figure, there appears to be an anomalous object that looks like a large circular heatsink, for want of a better description. There are lines that remind me of fins, radiating out from a central circular core.

NASA has been lying to all of us for decades.





That really bugs me now. No backpack, no camera on the figure in the reflection.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Someone mentioned how silly these discussions are getting and how it is to get people to see simple things.

I don't have much time so I quickly made a mockup of the scene except the astronaut taking the picture is on a flat plane rather than on a hillside.

The little blue box would be the camera. The virtual camera I set up is taking the same shot as the blue box would be taking if aimed for this shot. You can see in the original the mans arm that is holding the camera at an angle. Like I said though the astronaut is on a bit of a hillside.

That photo has nothing odd at all in it and does not show a third person. It perfectly shows the reflection of the one taking the photo.



If anyone can not see it, you don't comprehend perspective and curved reflections so nobody will ever be able to teach you unless you want to learn.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by js331975
 


Schmidt's body is angled so the PLSS is not visible, especially because of the distortion fromthe convex helmet visor:


No backpack, no camera on the figure in the reflection.


You can see the way his arems are positioned, he is HOLDING something. That would be the camera, since he DID snap a picture.

BTW....it was possible for them to hold a camera, and bend the head down, while within the helmet, to "eyeball" it.
~~~~~
(**) Adding, this little tidbit I just learned, from reading Cernan's book. What to do if your nose itches, inside the helmet? There was a small patch of Velcro glued inside, and they could bend their head down, and scratch their nose on that...
~~~~~

Didn't need a viewfinder. AND they took a LOT of photos, and a lot of the photos were junk. Since they were aiming with a bit of guess work often.

Also, they practised on Earth, with those Hasselblads, a lot too.

They were very familiar with their operation. They took the darn things HOME with them? Used them around the house. Took a whole gaggle of photos. Read some of the Astronaut's biographies, or personal recollections of many, many other people who were principle players in the Space Program back then...


[edit on 22 April 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Is there any chance that the curved globe of the face shield could make the person in the reflection seem to be facing a little more turned than he actually is? but still it doesnt seem he has a camera attached to him either, but either way if the guy in the reflection didnt take the picture when you look at the reflection... who did? if it was a camera mounted on something else wouldnt yuo see the camera still in the reflection as well?



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Considering the dust beneath them is hundreds if not thousands of years old and un-disturbed, the foot prints are inaccurate - look at the size of the boots, placement and facing that the astronaut is wearing, would you be so specific about where you would put those huge boots? no? neither would I.

The moon landing is all but as water tight as Thor's hammer, world peace and Obama's policy on Iran.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Temperature Drop
Considering the dust beneath them is hundreds if not thousands of years old and un-disturbed, the foot prints are inaccurate - look at the size of the boots, placement and facing that the astronaut is wearing, would you be so specific about where you would put those huge boots? no? neither would I.

The moon landing is all but as water tight as Thor's hammer, world peace and Obama's policy on Iran.



What do you mean re the foot prints are inaccurate care to explain what you actually mean



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 06:24 PM
link   
Look at the position of the astronaut in the main photo, his position makes absolutely no sense compared to the footprints that got him there and they are not off camera they are right there infront of you to the right of the nearside "rock".

Now look 45 degrees from the only two closely positioned footprints, what is that fang like print? it certainly is not a boot, so what is it? also the position of those footprints is strange, it almost looks as if he landed in that particular spot "cross legged" look at the shape of the most prominent boot.

The whole thing is total garbage.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 06:33 PM
link   
I would also question the shadows cast from the astronaut to the piece of equipment on the floor to his left, look at his stance, that would surely present a greater shadow mass that it does in the photo unless it comes from high intensity lighting.

Compare the astronautics off stance with the piece of equipment on the floor to his left.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 06:36 PM
link   
so.. why can't this just be a practice shot from somewhere on earth? who said it was taken on the moon in the first place? Just because it has N.A.S.A. on it , doesn't mean it was taken on the moon..right?



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   
The title of this topic was, "Who took this photo on the moon?" I hereby present my reasons why it was NOT taken on the moon.

.....



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Temperature Drop
Look at the position of the astronaut in the main photo, his position makes absolutely no sense compared to the footprints that got him there and they are not off camera they are right there infront of you to the right of the nearside "rock".

Now look 45 degrees from the only two closely positioned footprints, what is that fang like print? it certainly is not a boot, so what is it? also the position of those footprints is strange, it almost looks as if he landed in that particular spot "cross legged" look at the shape of the most prominent boot.

The whole thing is total garbage.


The thing is YOU dont know what footprints got him there do you
There was 2 Astronauts remember.

You cant know who made what footprints so your assumption is flawed.



new topics

top topics



 
105
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join