Who took this photo on the moon ?

The transcriptions of the radio chatter seems to corroborate the location / experiment / photos:

165:16:32 Schmitt: Yeah, sorry about that. But...

165:16:34 Parker: We can hear you loud and clear. We're just looking at rocks right now.

165:16:37 Schmitt: (Garbled)

165:16:39 Cernan: Okay, Bob, the boulder downslope (that is, Fragment 2) is more of a light-gray, vesicular boulder. The one Jack just talked about (that is, Fragment 1) with some of the larger white inclusions is less vesicular, and it's more of blue-gray rock. And if I don't fall on my tail here, I'll get...

165:17:01 Schmitt: The "locator" is of Henry.

[Being high up the slope, they can easily distinguish craters on the valley floor.]
[Jack's photos of the inclusions at the southeast corner of Fragment 1 are AS17-141 21608 and 21609. Fragment 1 is on the righthand side of 21608 and Fragment 2 is beyond Gene. See the Station 6 plan view. Note that they have note positioned the gnomon color chart and grey scale pointing up-Sun but, rather, toward Jack.]

[Frame 21610 is the "locator" to Henry.]

[Gene's photo of Fragment 1 is AS17-140- 21441.]

165:17:06 Parker: Copy that. (Pause)
165:17:10 Cernan: Okay, let me try and get up there. (Pause) Henry? We must be high enough to see something. I haven't even looked back.

165:17:22 Schmitt: Let me get a close-up before you start pounding.

Source (photo links embedded) Image #21608 = OP

This EVA (#3) and Mission Objectives are well documented.

(I'm on the skeptic side of the fence on this one.)

Tons of info here

page 57
APOLLO 17
HASSELBLAD 70MM (FILM WIDTH) PHOTOGRAPHS
MAGAZINE L (AS17-141) FILM TYPE 3401
NASA PRINCIPAL CAMERA ALT LENS SUN MISSION DESCRIPTION
PHOTO NO. POINT KM. MM. EL. ACTIVITY

21608 60 36 EVA 3 STA 6, SPL 6215, 6235-39, 6305-07, CDR

Link to Photo Index see pg 57


[edit on 22-4-2010 by kinda kurious]

reply to post by tauristercus


That's pretty interesting, since the Astronaut in the visor doesn't even look like he has a life support pack on!

This is a pretty odd photo, but it still seems to make sense to me. Not quite sure why.

Originally posted by ppk55
Someone had to take the photo of the big guy in frame, and it couldn't have been the little guy reflected in his visor ... because he's pointed the wrong way. oh yeah, and the little guy doesn't have a life preserving backpack either.

Originally posted by riverbank
umm. sorry for ask, but all i see it's just 1 man standing in left side, and 1 in his visor.. that's only 2 right?

[edit on 22-4-2010 by ppk55]

Bingo, bingo, bingo!!!!!!!!! I was just getting my thought together to say that the man in the visor couldn't have made this shot. One, if the man made the shot with the same type of camera (which is the only way because of their inability to use their hands in those gloves), he couldn't have gotten him in the shot. Because he was at an angle that showed his shadow in almost full because of the light source. If he made that shot he would have had to made that shot with his body not at an angle but facing the astronaut and the shadow of the photographer in the helmet would have been thinner. Two, (as ppk55 said) the man taking the photo doesn't have a life support pack on. That thing is bulky and unless the photographer is wearing a version that is tubular and about 3 feet in length and foot in diameter, that man isn't wearing one. In fact as the OP posted, it does look like they made him up to LOOK like an astronaut in APOLLO 17 flight suit (look up their suits you will see) but not in a real one.

Also I will post a link about the camera, but how in gods name could they have made such good shots from their camera and that particular camera at that. Here's a quote "To deal with this dramatic range in temperature, spacesuits are heavily insulated with layers of fabric and then covered with reflective outer layers. This minimizes the temperature differences between when the astronaut is in the sunlight and when in shade. Space suits also have internal heaters and cooling systems, and liquid heat exchange pumps that remove excess heat.". Those cameras didn't have all that to protect the film that was inside or even the sensitive camera equipment that was used like the shutter and other small movable parts. With a daylight temperature hotter than boiling water and shade temperature at least -200 degrees below zero (with no hysteresis or gradual change in temperature) you would have cooling and heating effect that essentially would be like flash heating and flash cooling all in seconds. And this was being done to a camera like that with sensitive film and sensitive parts. I checked the pic and others and there isn't any cooling system or even enough insulation to have saved that camera or film from being frozen solid or cooked well done.

www.geschichteinchronologie.ch...

People did go to the moon, I will say that. But something about the Apollo missions especially this one 17, is off base.

Sheesh
Nine pages in already. Well I'll still reply.

The answer is the astronaut in the reflection took the picture.

This controversy is based on the fallacy that the figure reflected in the visor is not facing the astronaut therefore it cannot also be the photographer.

Notice the image is centered on the tripod and not the astronaut. This tells us if the photographer were reflected on the visor, he will not be facing the astronaut.

We can deduce that the photographer is standing in front and to the right of the astronaut in the image. Therefore he will have a direct line of sight to the mirrored visor of the astronaut in the image.

If you look at a mirrored ball, no matter where you stand you will see your own reflection.

Therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE for that picture to be taken without the photographer catching the image of his own reflection on the mirrored visor of the astronauts helmet.

A real point of confusion would be if there were NOBODY reflected in the visor.











[edit on 22-4-2010 by GuyverUnit I]

I find this thread very interesting. I looked at the photo taken prior to the one in question and feel it may give some new prospective as too what or who took the picture.

history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-141-21607HR.jpg

Edit to add this photo as well.
history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-141-21637HR.jpg




Also does the number "32" at the bottom of the photo mean it was taken from the same camera?

Thanks
Rhain


[edit on 22/4/10 by Rhain]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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...)

Yes I am familer with the term. I think the 100 post before this has driven the issue into the ground, just a bit of fun for us to look at. No Jesus, Pope or Father saturday night live. If the cameras at the time had CCD's we could pick it to pieces, sorry we can't.

reply to post by ppk55


I dont think this picture was taken on the moon. The reflection in the visor has no air pack therefore he is either dead or on earth!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/66f68c7e1ae6.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by hoghead cheese
Because he was at an angle that showed his shadow in almost full because of the light source. If he made that shot he would have had to made that shot with his body not at an angle but facing the astronaut and the shadow of the photographer in the helmet would have been thinner.

The astronaut that's being photographed isn't in the center of the frame and the camera lens was a bit of a wide angle lens, so there is no need for the astronaut who took the photo, to have been facing directly towards the other astronaut to get him in frame.

Two, (as ppk55 said) the man taking the photo doesn't have a life support pack on.

I don't get how anyone can claim this. Even with the high resolution image, the reflection is much too small to make out any details what so ever.

With a daylight temperature hotter than boiling water and shade temperature at least -200 degrees below zero (with no hysteresis or gradual change in temperature) you would have cooling and heating effect that essentially would be like flash heating and flash cooling all in seconds.

No you wouldn't. Different materials heat up and cool off and different rates. Nothing goes from 120C to -200C in seconds, not even the Moon itself. The Moons surface only reaches 120C at noon and all the Apollo missions happened in the morning. And the temperature of the Lunar surface has little to no effect on the temperatures of other objects.

The camera's had a shiny metal body. That reflects a lot of the heat away, so the camera would only warm up slowly and when in the shade it would begin to cool off at the same rate that it warmed up. The film inside the camera was not in direct sunlight (for obvious reasons) and thus did not experience any extreme temperatures. Plus the film magazines had additional thermal insulation. There would have been some heat transfer to the film, but not enough to get it extremely hot or cold. Plus the film they used was designed for high altitude aerial photography, so it can handle cold temperatures.

The materials of the spacesuits were enough to reflect and insulate the astronauts from a lot of the heat from the Sun. The liquid cooling garment that they wore underneath was for removing heat generated from there body.

reply to post by wmd_2008


I enlarged this photo to 400 times and can see that there appears to be something in his left hand...is that the camera? again, as a reflexion, it is transposed so it would be his right hand I guess...it is indistinct but clear that he has something in his hand...

reply to post by ppk55


The visor is a curved surface the refection is distorted like a fun house mirror.If you look closely it looks like hes turned sideways but look carefully at the position of the legs both are facing forward. moth legs were shrunk and shortened if you hadnt noticed. Trying to get an image off a curved mirror isnt easy and often times so distorts the image. as far as the picture if you look this is a low image pic equivalent to about 5 meg cam.Or in other words the image is less hen 50 pixels what kinda detail do you think your going to get.And if you look there is a white patch on the chest that looks like the hasselblad.

Cant believe people think i curve like that on the visor an the image should look like an astronaut!

OK, here is the deal. The EVA’s are Time stamped. As I pointed out before, the picture in OP #21608 occurred @ around 165:17:00 +/-. (Mission time?)

165:17:01 Schmitt: The "locator" is of Henry.

Being high up the slope, they can easily distinguish craters on the valley floor.
Jack's photos of the inclusions at the southeast corner of Fragment 1 are AS17-141 21608 and 21609.....

There is also corresponding video (also "ballpark" timecoded) here:

www.hq.nasa.gov... (left sidebar video/movies:3rd EVA Geology Station #6)

It is video shot from Rover camera, remotely controlled. (mostly real media format, yuck but you can download free player for both pc and mac)

Here is a frame grab from minutes before actual photo was taken. It CLEARLY shows both Astronauts @ location. (Geology Station #6)

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2caac7b5bdcc.jpg[/atsimg]

Clip # 1650339 (clip name = timecode)
Unfortunately the clip with direct corresponding timecode has some NASA engineer panning the landscape but you can hear the astronauts discussing mission/rock/photos. * Also worthy of note is how dark the lower legs of their suits are due to dusty conditions* This was discussed regarding image in reflected photo.

In this case, the evidence considered in context points to nothing extraordinary IMO and I’m known for absurd theories/claims.

Download the player and watch the clips, they will shed compelling clarity.

Regards...kk


[edit on 22-4-2010 by kinda kurious]

To me, it looks correct. The visor gives a fish-eye type distortion, so in the visor it looks like he's more on the side than he really is, as well as making him look further away. He is fairly close to the other astronaut, as you can see by comparing the side of the rock/cliff in the picture and the distorted one in the astronaut's visor. It's all good -- no conspiracy here, guys. I don't even see what you are trying to get at in the OP, to be honest. But the picture looks fine to me. In my opinion, you guys are looking way too much into this. My tew sentz.

[edit on 22-4-2010 by Fangula]

The way I see it is it's a lot more narrow of a reflection on the visor then you think. Look at the orientation of the reflection of the chest camera and the two rocks on the astronaut, clearly makes it possible for something to be out of the frame and taking the picture, such as the rover.

Well I can definitely tell you who took that photo on the moon...

The other guy on the moon!

I have read some very interesting theories here tonight, and frankly I think they are a bit reaching.

Do I think there is more to the moon than we are told? Of course! Is this a case of trickery or a hoax? To me it seems a stretch.

Sure, the reflected image of the man seems to be a little odd -- but the camera was not a digital SLR of today! Details can be lost!

It still is a really cool photo though and yes, it had me puzzled for a few minutes, good eye guys!

And the real conspiracy killer, a pic taken from the Apollo 17 image library looking at the rover from the astronauts position. Literally the image before this one in the image gallery.

Image from astronaut

reply to post by Deaf Alien


looks like just a 'artistic' shot, where he shot through his helmet to show the other astronaut.

even though cameras were mounted, it doesn't mean this is exactly too crazy to accomplish, being men on the moon; you'd think quick when it comes to taking snapshots

Imo an expert needs to clean up the reflection in the visor, the quality is so low that his hand alone consists of about 4 pixels. the white section behind the helmet could very well be the life support systems with a piece of the insulation blanket that is protruding above the helmet and looks like an antenna. if u check photos of the apollo 17 spacesuits theres a nice traingular piece that for some reason seems to always come loose. i believe what u are mostly seeing is the life support pack in the white areas and u cant see the visor which makes up a large portion of the helmet due to its high reflectivity. until the image is cleaned up i believe we will all see what we want to see and not whats really there. i believe theres more to see in the shadow the astronaut is casting in the reflection then from anything else. its almost looks like a perfect silhoutte of an astronaut with a full space suit and camera.

[edit on 23-4-2010 by TheScale]

Nah, i'm telling ya, it was taken on earth..why all the fuss? we can see the guy in the reflection has no spacesuit on..don't know why everyone want's to pick it apart like you are all doing..DO YOU SEE A SPACESUIT? no..and i don't either..it was taken in one of the Practice studios..this is a practice photo before they went to the ?moon/studio/hanger..who knows

It kind of looks like he's in front an stone carving of a kneeling man if you look at the reflection in the visor. Kind of like a giant chair made out of a kneeling man. Like something you might see in Easter Island.

reply to post by baddmove


study the shadow the astronaut is casting. u can clearly see the square life support pack, the round helmet, and the camera protruding from the chest.if u were to rotate the image 90 degrees counter clockwise it would look almost perfect except for the high sun angle makes it look short and wide.

[edit on 23-4-2010 by TheScale]